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 held that the impugned order was set aside and the appeal allowed, concluding that customs officers lack statutory authority to redetermine the FOB transaction value agreed between the exporter (Appellant) and the overseas buyer (Respondent). The Tribunal affirmed that FOB constitutes the transaction value where the exporter bears costs and risks until goods are placed on board, and neither the Act nor the Export Valuation Rules empower a proper officer or any third party to alter that contractual transaction value for benefits assessment. The proper officer's valuation powers relate to assessable value for duty purposes under section 14 and do not extend to revising an agreed FOB sale price.
CESTAT held that the impugned order was set aside and the appeal allowed, concluding that customs officers lack statutory authority to redetermine the FOB transaction value agreed between the exporter (Appellant) and the overseas buyer (Respondent). The Tribunal affirmed that FOB constitutes the transaction value where the exporter bears costs and risks until goods are placed on board, and neither the Act nor the Export Valuation Rules empower a proper officer or any third party to alter that contractual transaction value for benefits assessment. The proper officer's valuation powers relate to assessable value for duty purposes under section 14 and do not extend to revising an agreed FOB sale price.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.