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 allowed the appeals and set aside the impugned order. The Tribunal held that the adjudicating authority lacked jurisdiction to re-determine valuation and to recover additional duty or confiscate goods on the basis that imported consignments did not bear a retail sale price (RSP). The obligation to levy additional duty under section 3(1)/3(2) of the Customs Tariff Act must operate within the statutory valuation scheme; post-clearance reassessment cannot be effected absent competence under the Customs Valuation rules or express statutory power to revisit transaction value under the Customs Act. Consequently the recovery of differential duty and consequential confiscation were held unlawful and quashed.
CESTAT allowed the appeals and set aside the impugned order. The Tribunal held that the adjudicating authority lacked jurisdiction to re-determine valuation and to recover additional duty or confiscate goods on the basis that imported consignments did not bear a retail sale price (RSP). The obligation to levy additional duty under section 3(1)/3(2) of the Customs Tariff Act must operate within the statutory valuation scheme; post-clearance reassessment cannot be effected absent competence under the Customs Valuation rules or express statutory power to revisit transaction value under the Customs Act. Consequently the recovery of differential duty and consequential confiscation were held unlawful and quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.