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 filed by the importer and set aside the order of the Pr. Commr. denying exemption under N/N. 25/2002 dated 01.03.2002. The Tribunal held that the imported goods were duly declared in the Bills of Entry as intended for manufacture of PCB/PCBA of mobile phones, and there was no allegation of non-compliance with the procedural requirements under r.5 of the 2017 Rules. The misdescription in the declaration under r.4 as "smart phones" was treated as an honest and satisfactorily explained mistake, not affecting substantive eligibility. Consequently, the denial of exemption, demand of differential customs duty, interest, and penalty were quashed.
CESTAT allowed the appeal filed by the importer and set aside the order of the Pr. Commr. denying exemption under N/N. 25/2002 dated 01.03.2002. The Tribunal held that the imported goods were duly declared in the Bills of Entry as intended for manufacture of PCB/PCBA of mobile phones, and there was no allegation of non-compliance with the procedural requirements under r.5 of the 2017 Rules. The misdescription in the declaration under r.4 as "smart phones" was treated as an honest and satisfactorily explained mistake, not affecting substantive eligibility. Consequently, the denial of exemption, demand of differential customs duty, interest, and penalty were quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
