Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
Page of 4824
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
601 to 620 of 96463 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Imported multifunctional goods described as wheelchairs with a toileting facility were held classifiable by their essential character and principal function. Their design, wheels and intended use showed that they remained mobility aids for disabled persons, while the toileting feature was only ancillary; heading 9402 was inapplicable because the goods were not specialised medical furniture and performed no medical or surgical function. The Tribunal also held that exemption under Notification No. 12/2012-Cus. applied once the goods fell under Heading 8713, and no unstated exclusion could be read into the notification to deny relief for the additional toileting feature. The appellate order was upheld.
Imported multifunctional goods described as wheelchairs with a toileting facility were held classifiable by their essential character and principal function. Their design, wheels and intended use showed that they remained mobility aids for disabled persons, while the toileting feature was only ancillary; heading 9402 was inapplicable because the goods were not specialised medical furniture and performed no medical or surgical function. The Tribunal also held that exemption under Notification No. 12/2012-Cus. applied once the goods fell under Heading 8713, and no unstated exclusion could be read into the notification to deny relief for the additional toileting feature. The appellate order was upheld.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.