Transfer pricing comparables and adjustments: Tribunal revisits loss-maker status, segmental comparability, working capital relief, and risk allocatio...
Business expenditure disallowance failed where commission, related-party salary and promotion payments were supported by records and inquiry was inade...
Subsequent purchasers of imported vehicles were not liable for differential customs duty arising from alleged misdeclaration of the year of manufacture, because they were not involved in the importation and could not be treated as importers for recovery under customs law. A joint and several demand confirmed against importers and purchasers was therefore unsustainable, following the governing Supreme Court principle on the definition of importer and recovery of duty. The penalties imposed on the purchasers also failed because they were consequential to the unsustainable duty demand. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and granted consequential relief.
Subsequent purchasers of imported vehicles were not liable for differential customs duty arising from alleged misdeclaration of the year of manufacture, because they were not involved in the importation and could not be treated as importers for recovery under customs law. A joint and several demand confirmed against importers and purchasers was therefore unsustainable, following the governing Supreme Court principle on the definition of importer and recovery of duty. The penalties imposed on the purchasers also failed because they were consequential to the unsustainable duty demand. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and granted consequential relief.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4807 
Join Channel 
