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" ?
Dominant issue 1: Whether transaction value must be fixed by contemporaneous imports under Valuation Rule 4 when declared goods differ in specification. Reasoning: Proper officer reasonably doubted declared value because invoices stated 0.62 mm thickness while actual fabric measured 0.74-0.81 mm (19-30% higher); contemporaneous identical imports showed U.S.$1.80 and $1.85 per metre, so Rule 4 mandates the lower contemporaneous transaction value. Outcome: Assessable value, differential duty and penalty under s.114A are re-determined using U.S.$1.80/m. Dominant issue 2: Whether mis-declaration and confiscation, redemption fine and director penalty justified. Reasoning: Import was mis-declared (s.111(m)); redemption fine was modest and director penalty under s.112(a) was appropriate. Outcome: Confiscation, redemption fine and director penalty upheld. - CESTAT
Dominant issue 1: Whether transaction value must be fixed by contemporaneous imports under Valuation Rule 4 when declared goods differ in specification. Reasoning: Proper officer reasonably doubted declared value because invoices stated 0.62 mm thickness while actual fabric measured 0.74-0.81 mm (19-30% higher); contemporaneous identical imports showed U.S.$1.80 and $1.85 per metre, so Rule 4 mandates the lower contemporaneous transaction value. Outcome: Assessable value, differential duty and penalty under s.114A are re-determined using U.S.$1.80/m. Dominant issue 2: Whether mis-declaration and confiscation, redemption fine and director penalty justified. Reasoning: Import was mis-declared (s.111(m)); redemption fine was modest and director penalty under s.112(a) was appropriate. Outcome: Confiscation, redemption fine and director penalty upheld. - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
