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 impugned order, holding that the Appellant's import of ENABLE 2005-CE under Notification No. 52/2003-Cus was valid. The Tribunal found the item was recognized as an input in the MEPZ LUT renewal of 26 Feb 2013 and thus fell within the SION coverage for the exported product; any non-conformity was procedural. No post-importation conditions of the notification were alleged to be breached. Consequently, confiscation under s.111(o) and penalty under s.112(a)(ii) could not be sustained. Allegations of mis-declaration were unsupported and s.111(m) was not invoked; appeal allowed, order set aside.
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order, holding that the Appellant's import of ENABLE 2005-CE under Notification No. 52/2003-Cus was valid. The Tribunal found the item was recognized as an input in the MEPZ LUT renewal of 26 Feb 2013 and thus fell within the SION coverage for the exported product; any non-conformity was procedural. No post-importation conditions of the notification were alleged to be breached. Consequently, confiscation under s.111(o) and penalty under s.112(a)(ii) could not be sustained. Allegations of mis-declaration were unsupported and s.111(m) was not invoked; appeal allowed, order set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.