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" ?
A concession-based statement in Amba Lal was treated as non-binding because the Supreme Court had not independently decided the legal issue, so it could not govern the appellant's claim for release of imported goods for home consumption. The Tribunal then applied the principle that a beneficial amending notification operates retrospectively: although confiscation and penalty were justified when the goods were prohibited, the later notification changed their status to restricted before the order was passed. Redemption should therefore have been allowed for home consumption, subject to payment of enhanced value, duty and interest, rather than confining the goods to re-export.
A concession-based statement in Amba Lal was treated as non-binding because the Supreme Court had not independently decided the legal issue, so it could not govern the appellant's claim for release of imported goods for home consumption. The Tribunal then applied the principle that a beneficial amending notification operates retrospectively: although confiscation and penalty were justified when the goods were prohibited, the later notification changed their status to restricted before the order was passed. Redemption should therefore have been allowed for home consumption, subject to payment of enhanced value, duty and interest, rather than confining the goods to re-export.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.