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 set aside the demand of differential customs duty raised on imported aluminium foil. It held that the goods' thickness was 0.0053 mm as correctly reflected in the commercial invoice and not 0.053 mm as recorded in the Bill of Entry; therefore, anti-dumping duty under the relevant notification was not leviable. CESTAT further held that the customs valuation at USD 3.6/kg in the second post-clearance audit was unsustainable, as the contemporaneous commercial invoice and subsequent invoice consistently showed a unit price of USD 2.79/kg, and the department adduced no evidence to the contrary. Consequently, the findings of short payment of customs duty were rejected and the impugned demand order was quashed, allowing the appeal of M/s X.
CESTAT set aside the demand of differential customs duty raised on imported aluminium foil. It held that the goods' thickness was 0.0053 mm as correctly reflected in the commercial invoice and not 0.053 mm as recorded in the Bill of Entry; therefore, anti-dumping duty under the relevant notification was not leviable. CESTAT further held that the customs valuation at USD 3.6/kg in the second post-clearance audit was unsustainable, as the contemporaneous commercial invoice and subsequent invoice consistently showed a unit price of USD 2.79/kg, and the department adduced no evidence to the contrary. Consequently, the findings of short payment of customs duty were rejected and the impugned demand order was quashed, allowing the appeal of M/s X.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
