Transfer-pricing treatment of ITeS margins excludes pass-through tax recoveries and separate delayed-receivables interest after working-capital adjust...
Capacity-utilisation adjustments under TNMM can neutralise substantiated COVID-related idle costs where underutilisation materially affects profitabil...
TNMM functional comparability requires excluding rice manufacturers from a pure Basmati rice trader's benchmark and recognising operating export recei...
Working-capital adjustment subsumes delayed-receivable effects in TNMM benchmarking of captive software-development services, avoiding separate notion...
Transfer-pricing comparability requires exclusion of financially illogical super-profit comparables and correction of unsupported annual-report and ma...
Charitable character assessment preserves Section 80G approval despite inclusive spiritual teachings and incidental religious expenditure within the s...
Penalty proceedings for cash-loan acceptance require assessment proceedings and recorded Assessing Officer satisfaction; absent these, the proceedings...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CESTAT dismissed the appellant's challenge and upheld classification of the imported product under Customs Tariff Heading 2106 rather than 3003, concluding the goods are general health/food preparations not medicaments. The Tribunal held that where an earlier CESTAT judgment is under appeal to the SC it cannot be relied upon as binding precedent for the same lis, and that admission of an appeal does not equate to an automatic stay. The Tribunal found the appellant failed to discharge the onus of proof regarding therapeutic use, whereas revenue met its evidentiary burden; accordingly the appeal was rejected and the impugned assessment sustained.
CESTAT dismissed the appellant's challenge and upheld classification of the imported product under Customs Tariff Heading 2106 rather than 3003, concluding the goods are general health/food preparations not medicaments. The Tribunal held that where an earlier CESTAT judgment is under appeal to the SC it cannot be relied upon as binding precedent for the same lis, and that admission of an appeal does not equate to an automatic stay. The Tribunal found the appellant failed to discharge the onus of proof regarding therapeutic use, whereas revenue met its evidentiary burden; accordingly the appeal was rejected and the impugned assessment sustained.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.