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 dismissed the rectification of mistake application filed by the appellant. It held that the Final Order had correctly recorded and relied upon the Textile Committee's test report dated 30.08.2016 and additional report dated 21.09.2016, both pertaining to the same sample received on 08.07.2016 under DRI's letter dated 06.07.2016. The contention that the additional report was based on a second set of samples sent on 01.09.2016 was rejected as contrary to the record. The Tribunal further reiterated that HS classification is a quasi-judicial function of customs authorities, not experts. No mistake apparent on record was found.
CESTAT dismissed the rectification of mistake application filed by the appellant. It held that the Final Order had correctly recorded and relied upon the Textile Committee's test report dated 30.08.2016 and additional report dated 21.09.2016, both pertaining to the same sample received on 08.07.2016 under DRI's letter dated 06.07.2016. The contention that the additional report was based on a second set of samples sent on 01.09.2016 was rejected as contrary to the record. The Tribunal further reiterated that HS classification is a quasi-judicial function of customs authorities, not experts. No mistake apparent on record was found.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
