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 appeal and set aside the adjudicating order that directed recovery of differential customs duty with interest and imposition of penalties. The Tribunal held that valuation for additional duty under s.3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act must conform to customs valuation rules and that re-determination based on post-import list prices was impermissible. The importer cannot be held liable for post-import alteration or re-affixation of retail selling prices by downstream parties; such adjustments, if any, pertain to excise jurisdiction under the Central Excise Act and Standards of Weights and Measures Act. The adjudicating authority exceeded its powers under the Customs Act; recovery and penalty directions were quashed.
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the adjudicating order that directed recovery of differential customs duty with interest and imposition of penalties. The Tribunal held that valuation for additional duty under s.3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act must conform to customs valuation rules and that re-determination based on post-import list prices was impermissible. The importer cannot be held liable for post-import alteration or re-affixation of retail selling prices by downstream parties; such adjustments, if any, pertain to excise jurisdiction under the Central Excise Act and Standards of Weights and Measures Act. The adjudicating authority exceeded its powers under the Customs Act; recovery and penalty directions were quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
