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 affirms the classification of the goods as "paper biri" under subheading 2403.19.29 and dismisses the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal held that packaging and labelling - including the explicit use of the term "bidi" on cartons and wrappers - demonstrate the Appellant's intention to market the product as bidi, not cigarette, and that chemical-examiner observations do not override the clear trade presentation and absence of market-enquiry evidence to the contrary. Relying on relevant High Court precedent, the Tribunal found no basis to reclassify the product as cigarette under subheading 2402.20.40, concluding there is no merit in the Revenue's grounds and upholding the impugned order.
CESTAT affirms the classification of the goods as "paper biri" under subheading 2403.19.29 and dismisses the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal held that packaging and labelling - including the explicit use of the term "bidi" on cartons and wrappers - demonstrate the Appellant's intention to market the product as bidi, not cigarette, and that chemical-examiner observations do not override the clear trade presentation and absence of market-enquiry evidence to the contrary. Relying on relevant High Court precedent, the Tribunal found no basis to reclassify the product as cigarette under subheading 2402.20.40, concluding there is no merit in the Revenue's grounds and upholding the impugned order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.