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...
Functional comparability governs software-service benchmarking: dissimilar companies are excluded, while related-party filters, margins and working-ca...
Import of Technical Grade Urea through a State Trading Enterprise remained compliant with the import policy even after the goods were sold on high seas to the appellant and the appellant filed the Bill of Entry for clearance. The Tribunal followed its earlier rulings that the policy required import through the State Trading Enterprise, not direct import by the end-user, so the appellant's role in clearance did not make the import unlawful. As the import was not contrary to law, confiscation was unwarranted and the consequential penalty could not survive. The Revenue's reliance on a different precedent was rejected as factually and legally distinguishable.
Import of Technical Grade Urea through a State Trading Enterprise remained compliant with the import policy even after the goods were sold on high seas to the appellant and the appellant filed the Bill of Entry for clearance. The Tribunal followed its earlier rulings that the policy required import through the State Trading Enterprise, not direct import by the end-user, so the appellant's role in clearance did not make the import unlawful. As the import was not contrary to law, confiscation was unwarranted and the consequential penalty could not survive. The Revenue's reliance on a different precedent was rejected as factually and legally distinguishable.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.