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 held that the two imported tugboats are classifiable under Chapter Heading 89.04 and constitute ships/boats, not "machinery, equipment or tools," thereby denying the appellant benefit of Notification No.72/2017-Cus. The Tribunal sustained invocation of the extended period of limitation. It directed the AA to compute the differential duty after allowing any allowable drawback, adjust duties already paid when calculating interest, and impose a penalty under s.114A equal to the differential duty (redemption fine and exact quantum to be determined by the AA). The penalty under s.114AA was set aside. The technical administrator was held liable to penalty under s.112(a)(ii) for filing bills of entry claiming the ineligible exemption. Appeal allowed in part; remitted for consequential computation.
CESTAT held that the two imported tugboats are classifiable under Chapter Heading 89.04 and constitute ships/boats, not "machinery, equipment or tools," thereby denying the appellant benefit of Notification No.72/2017-Cus. The Tribunal sustained invocation of the extended period of limitation. It directed the AA to compute the differential duty after allowing any allowable drawback, adjust duties already paid when calculating interest, and impose a penalty under s.114A equal to the differential duty (redemption fine and exact quantum to be determined by the AA). The penalty under s.114AA was set aside. The technical administrator was held liable to penalty under s.112(a)(ii) for filing bills of entry claiming the ineligible exemption. Appeal allowed in part; remitted for consequential computation.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.