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" ?
The dominant issue was whether Section 25(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 (as amended) and the enhanced duty notification could lawfully operate to demand a higher customs duty from the relevant date. Relying on binding precedent holding Section 25(4) arbitrary and contrary to Section 25(1) and 25(2A), and noting consistent views declaring it illegal and unconstitutional, the court held that the enhanced duty demand premised on Section 25(4) could not be sustained. Consequently, the impugned Bill of Entry was quashed and the authorities were directed to refund the excess duty with interest from the date of deposit until refund within three months. - HC
The dominant issue was whether Section 25(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 (as amended) and the enhanced duty notification could lawfully operate to demand a higher customs duty from the relevant date. Relying on binding precedent holding Section 25(4) arbitrary and contrary to Section 25(1) and 25(2A), and noting consistent views declaring it illegal and unconstitutional, the court held that the enhanced duty demand premised on Section 25(4) could not be sustained. Consequently, the impugned Bill of Entry was quashed and the authorities were directed to refund the excess duty with interest from the date of deposit until refund within three months. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
