Educational approval requires mandatory State registration, but incidental surplus and trustee-owned land do not prove private benefit or profit motiv...
Judicial review of settlement orders cannot reopen settled customs notices, while statutory interest remains subject to verification and quantificatio...
Customs Broker licence lending for consideration justified revocation where exporter authorisation and client verification obligations were also breac...
Fraudulent import documents suspend limitation protection, while redemption of confiscated goods requires duty and interest despite bona fide purchase...
ODR arbitration participation remains mandatory after failed conciliation, while jurisdictional and maintainability objections stay available before t...
Transparency in technical bid evaluation requires disclosed standards and recorded reasons; opaque scoring invalidated tender awards and required fres...
Automated export obligation extensions remove separate regional applications after committee approval for Advance Authorisation and EPCG authorisation...
Page of 4823
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
341 to 360 of 96456 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
In transfer pricing comparability, Excel Infoways Ltd. was excluded because Tribunal precedent noted low employee cost and fluctuating margins, and that exclusion was upheld. Jindal Intellicom Ltd. was directed to be included in the final comparable set because it had been accepted in the assessee's own earlier year and no material change in functional profile was shown for the relevant year. The Tribunal also held that working capital adjustment must be allowed while giving effect to the order, as differences affecting comparability must be adjusted in the profit margin of independent comparables. Revenue's appeal was dismissed and the assessee's cross-objection was partly allowed.
In transfer pricing comparability, Excel Infoways Ltd. was excluded because Tribunal precedent noted low employee cost and fluctuating margins, and that exclusion was upheld. Jindal Intellicom Ltd. was directed to be included in the final comparable set because it had been accepted in the assessee's own earlier year and no material change in functional profile was shown for the relevant year. The Tribunal also held that working capital adjustment must be allowed while giving effect to the order, as differences affecting comparability must be adjusted in the profit margin of independent comparables. Revenue's appeal was dismissed and the assessee's cross-objection was partly allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.