Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Merchant banker regulation consolidates registration, governance, capital, reporting, outsourcing and investor-protection requirements under an update...
Page of 4813
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
901 to 920 of 96257 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Imported Extraneal Peritoneal Dialysis Solution with 7.5% Icodestrin was held correctly classifiable under CTH 9018. The Tribunal followed the Supreme Court-backed classification already accepted in the appellant's own earlier case and found that the attempt to distinguish that binding precedent was untenable because the same product and classification dispute had already been examined on the relevant facts. It also noted that Delhi and Kolkata Benches had taken the same view, making the controversy no longer res integra. The contrary classification in the impugned order was rejected, the order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential benefits according to law.
Imported Extraneal Peritoneal Dialysis Solution with 7.5% Icodestrin was held correctly classifiable under CTH 9018. The Tribunal followed the Supreme Court-backed classification already accepted in the appellant's own earlier case and found that the attempt to distinguish that binding precedent was untenable because the same product and classification dispute had already been examined on the relevant facts. It also noted that Delhi and Kolkata Benches had taken the same view, making the controversy no longer res integra. The contrary classification in the impugned order was rejected, the order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential benefits according to law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.