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" ?
The imported toll management system equipment qualified for exemption under Sl. No. 368 of Notification No. 12/2012-Cus. because the first appellant was duly appointed as a sub-contractor for the road project and condition No. 9(a) was sufficiently met; the Tribunal held that the original concession agreement need not name the sub-contractor if subsequent contracts and communications showed authorised engagement. Condition No. 9(b) was also not breached, as the Revenue misread the five-year sale or disposal restriction and the transfer of project equipment to the concessionaire after completion did not defeat the exemption. With exemption upheld, the duty demand, confiscation under Section 111(o), and penalties were set aside.
The imported toll management system equipment qualified for exemption under Sl. No. 368 of Notification No. 12/2012-Cus. because the first appellant was duly appointed as a sub-contractor for the road project and condition No. 9(a) was sufficiently met; the Tribunal held that the original concession agreement need not name the sub-contractor if subsequent contracts and communications showed authorised engagement. Condition No. 9(b) was also not breached, as the Revenue misread the five-year sale or disposal restriction and the transfer of project equipment to the concessionaire after completion did not defeat the exemption. With exemption upheld, the duty demand, confiscation under Section 111(o), and penalties were set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
