Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
In determining whether the importer's advertisement and sales promotion expenditure could be added to assessable value under Rule 10(1)(e) of the 2007 Customs Valuation Rules, it was held that statements recorded under s.108 could not be relied upon because the mandatory procedure under s.138B was not followed, vitiating their evidentiary use. On merits, the marketing-support clause and first-year discount did not establish that any discount or promotional spend was a condition of sale or an amount paid/payable to the seller; the expenses were incurred on the importer's own account and were therefore not includible in assessable value. The demand of differential duty with interest and penalty was set aside and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief. - CESTAT
In determining whether the importer's advertisement and sales promotion expenditure could be added to assessable value under Rule 10(1)(e) of the 2007 Customs Valuation Rules, it was held that statements recorded under s.108 could not be relied upon because the mandatory procedure under s.138B was not followed, vitiating their evidentiary use. On merits, the marketing-support clause and first-year discount did not establish that any discount or promotional spend was a condition of sale or an amount paid/payable to the seller; the expenses were incurred on the importer's own account and were therefore not includible in assessable value. The demand of differential duty with interest and penalty was set aside and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief. - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.