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 found that revocation of a certificate of origin was treated improperly as a verification under the Operational Certification Procedures; the Rules of Origin and Operational Certification Procedures do not permit unilateral revocation by a government authority, so such action cannot substitute for Article 16 verification, and was an extra-legal exercise. Recovery of duty foregone under the Customs rules was set aside because proper procedural notice as required by the Customs Act was not given; the cumulative rule of origin was applicable to the shipment and non-use of A Form did not negate cumulative origin. The impugned order was quashed and the appeal allowed.
CESTAT found that revocation of a certificate of origin was treated improperly as a verification under the Operational Certification Procedures; the Rules of Origin and Operational Certification Procedures do not permit unilateral revocation by a government authority, so such action cannot substitute for Article 16 verification, and was an extra-legal exercise. Recovery of duty foregone under the Customs rules was set aside because proper procedural notice as required by the Customs Act was not given; the cumulative rule of origin was applicable to the shipment and non-use of A Form did not negate cumulative origin. The impugned order was quashed and the appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.