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...
Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Alternative GST remedy permitted protective writ intervention for ex parte adjudication, preserving independent appellate review of input tax credit d...
Page of 4826
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
661 to 680 of 96508 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The exemption under Notification No. 21/2002 could not be denied merely because the importer did not re-export the goods within the date mentioned in the DGH certificate, as the notification itself imposed no such time-bound condition. The Tribunal held that Condition No. 29 only required a DGH certificate confirming that the goods were needed for petroleum operations and imported under the relevant licence or mining lease; any additional re-export stipulation in the certificate could not override the notification. It further applied its earlier ruling that clearance to an SEZ unit after use amounts to export under the SEZ Act. The demand of duty, interest and penalty was therefore unsustainable and was set aside.
The exemption under Notification No. 21/2002 could not be denied merely because the importer did not re-export the goods within the date mentioned in the DGH certificate, as the notification itself imposed no such time-bound condition. The Tribunal held that Condition No. 29 only required a DGH certificate confirming that the goods were needed for petroleum operations and imported under the relevant licence or mining lease; any additional re-export stipulation in the certificate could not override the notification. It further applied its earlier ruling that clearance to an SEZ unit after use amounts to export under the SEZ Act. The demand of duty, interest and penalty was therefore unsustainable and was set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4826 
Join Channel 
