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 set aside the impugned order insofar as it held that royalty payments to a foreign related entity were includible in the transaction value of imported components under rule 10(1)(c) of the 2007 Valuation Rules. The Tribunal concluded the royalty related to domestically manufactured finished goods, was not a condition of sale of the imported goods, and therefore could not be added to assessable value; consequential imposition of penalty under s.114A of the Customs Act was unsustainable. The Tribunal further held the extended period of limitation could not be invoked because there was no evidence of suppression of facts with intent to evade duty. The appeal was allowed and the impugned order set aside.
CESTAT set aside the impugned order insofar as it held that royalty payments to a foreign related entity were includible in the transaction value of imported components under rule 10(1)(c) of the 2007 Valuation Rules. The Tribunal concluded the royalty related to domestically manufactured finished goods, was not a condition of sale of the imported goods, and therefore could not be added to assessable value; consequential imposition of penalty under s.114A of the Customs Act was unsustainable. The Tribunal further held the extended period of limitation could not be invoked because there was no evidence of suppression of facts with intent to evade duty. The appeal was allowed and the impugned order set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.