Transfer pricing and tax deductions upheld on established principles, while employee contributions and warranty provisions returned for fresh examinat...
Captive transfer pricing relies on industrial consumer tariffs, while genuine quotations can benchmark effluent treatment transfers under the Other Me...
Specific tariff classification for ophthalmic instruments and extended limitation principles determine the treatment of duty demands, confiscation, an...
Integrated golf function determines classification, placing launch monitors and simulators under other golf equipment rather than measuring instrument...
Public servant status under anti-corruption law extends to recognised stock exchange leadership; constitutional and sanction challenges do not succeed...
Acquiescence, homebuyer protection and clean-slate resolution principles prevent landowners from disrupting an integrated project through late termina...
Advance ruling sought on eligibility for refund of unutilised input tax credit arising from an inverted duty structure for manufacture and outward supply of cotton yarn; AAR holds that refund query falls outside the enumerated matters under the provision governing advance rulings and is therefore not maintainable, resulting in rejection of the application. AAR further finds the application inadmissible because the applicant is a consultant raising questions on behalf of a client and the question does not relate to supplies undertaken or proposed by the applicant; outcome: application liable to be rejected. AAR notes advance rulings may be void ab initio if obtained by fraud or suppression and that rulings bind the applicant and concerned officer.
Advance ruling sought on eligibility for refund of unutilised input tax credit arising from an inverted duty structure for manufacture and outward supply of cotton yarn; AAR holds that refund query falls outside the enumerated matters under the provision governing advance rulings and is therefore not maintainable, resulting in rejection of the application. AAR further finds the application inadmissible because the applicant is a consultant raising questions on behalf of a client and the question does not relate to supplies undertaken or proposed by the applicant; outcome: application liable to be rejected. AAR notes advance rulings may be void ab initio if obtained by fraud or suppression and that rulings bind the applicant and concerned officer.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.