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 while Customs authorities are competent to investigate and issue show cause notices concerning eligibility of exemption under N/N. 18/2015-Cus., the final determination of eligibility of Advance Authorisation benefits lies with DGFT. Since the core issue pertained to fulfilment of export obligation and permissible use of imported goods under the Foreign Trade Policy, CESTAT ruled that the impugned order passed by the adjudicating authority was premature in the absence of a prior, final decision by DGFT on the same issue. Accordingly, the impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded to the adjudicating authority to re-decide the show cause notice after DGFT concludes its adjudication. The appeal was disposed of by remand.
CESTAT held that while Customs authorities are competent to investigate and issue show cause notices concerning eligibility of exemption under N/N. 18/2015-Cus., the final determination of eligibility of Advance Authorisation benefits lies with DGFT. Since the core issue pertained to fulfilment of export obligation and permissible use of imported goods under the Foreign Trade Policy, CESTAT ruled that the impugned order passed by the adjudicating authority was premature in the absence of a prior, final decision by DGFT on the same issue. Accordingly, the impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded to the adjudicating authority to re-decide the show cause notice after DGFT concludes its adjudication. The appeal was disposed of by remand.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.