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" ?
Supplies from the Domestic Tariff Area to an SEZ unit were treated as deemed exports under the FTP, so the entitlement to EPCG export benefits had to be tested under Chapter 8 of the FTP rather than by a narrow reading of the SEZ Act. The Court held that Section 2(m)(ii) and Section 53 of the SEZ Act, and Rule 30 of the SEZ Rules, did not extinguish FTP benefits or make Bills of Export the only proof of export obligation. Invoices together with bank realisation certificates were sufficient evidence of compliance, and the review petition failed because absence of Bills of Export alone could not defeat the claim.
Supplies from the Domestic Tariff Area to an SEZ unit were treated as deemed exports under the FTP, so the entitlement to EPCG export benefits had to be tested under Chapter 8 of the FTP rather than by a narrow reading of the SEZ Act. The Court held that Section 2(m)(ii) and Section 53 of the SEZ Act, and Rule 30 of the SEZ Rules, did not extinguish FTP benefits or make Bills of Export the only proof of export obligation. Invoices together with bank realisation certificates were sufficient evidence of compliance, and the review petition failed because absence of Bills of Export alone could not defeat the claim.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.