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 4827
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
141 to 160 of 96536 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, setting aside the Principal Commissioner's order and restoring the classification and declared valuation. The Tribunal held that the Principal Commissioner unlawfully reclassified LED continuous lighting equipment from CTH 9006 to CTH 9405 despite prior appellate and adjudicatory orders in respect of identical products accepted by the Department; divergent treatment of remaining Bills of Entry was impermissible. A revised statement under s.108 Customs Act was held inadmissible absent appropriate witness examination and opportunity for cross-examination, and subsequent reliance on a post-date price list and an ex parte market survey was rejected. The CA certificate supporting the declared value was retained, and the rejection and re-determination under Valuation Rules were quashed.
CESTAT allowed the appeal, setting aside the Principal Commissioner's order and restoring the classification and declared valuation. The Tribunal held that the Principal Commissioner unlawfully reclassified LED continuous lighting equipment from CTH 9006 to CTH 9405 despite prior appellate and adjudicatory orders in respect of identical products accepted by the Department; divergent treatment of remaining Bills of Entry was impermissible. A revised statement under s.108 Customs Act was held inadmissible absent appropriate witness examination and opportunity for cross-examination, and subsequent reliance on a post-date price list and an ex parte market survey was rejected. The CA certificate supporting the declared value was retained, and the rejection and re-determination under Valuation Rules were quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.