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" ?
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.