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 held that the imported gold pendants are classifiable under CTH 7113 1910, as declared by the appellant, and not under CTH 7108 1300 as held by the lower authorities. Relying on HC precedent, the Tribunal ruled that DGFT Notifications dated 24.08.2019 and 18.12.2019, and subsequent Notification No. 22/2021 expanding the restriction, could not be applied retrospectively, as the goods were freely importable on the date of import. The pendants, being wearable jewellery of 99.99% purity, were not prohibited goods. Consequently, the demand, confiscation and penalties were held unsustainable and the Commissioner's order was set aside, allowing the appeal.
CESTAT held that the imported gold pendants are classifiable under CTH 7113 1910, as declared by the appellant, and not under CTH 7108 1300 as held by the lower authorities. Relying on HC precedent, the Tribunal ruled that DGFT Notifications dated 24.08.2019 and 18.12.2019, and subsequent Notification No. 22/2021 expanding the restriction, could not be applied retrospectively, as the goods were freely importable on the date of import. The pendants, being wearable jewellery of 99.99% purity, were not prohibited goods. Consequently, the demand, confiscation and penalties were held unsustainable and the Commissioner's order was set aside, allowing the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
