Transfer pricing comparables and adjustments: Tribunal revisits loss-maker status, segmental comparability, working capital relief, and risk allocatio...
Business expenditure disallowance failed where commission, related-party salary and promotion payments were supported by records and inquiry was inade...
A refund of Extra Duty Deposit was held not hit by unjust enrichment where the disputed amount had been shown as recoverable in the relevant balance sheet, supported by a Chartered Accountant certificate, and the payment had been made from a promoter's loan that was a transaction distinct from the import itself. The Tribunal found that such loan funding did not amount to passing on the duty incidence to another person, so credit to the Consumer Welfare Fund was unsustainable and the refund was payable to the appellant. It also held that interest was payable on the delayed refund in accordance with the Customs Act, applying the principle in Ranbaxy Laboratories.
A refund of Extra Duty Deposit was held not hit by unjust enrichment where the disputed amount had been shown as recoverable in the relevant balance sheet, supported by a Chartered Accountant certificate, and the payment had been made from a promoter's loan that was a transaction distinct from the import itself. The Tribunal found that such loan funding did not amount to passing on the duty incidence to another person, so credit to the Consumer Welfare Fund was unsustainable and the refund was payable to the appellant. It also held that interest was payable on the delayed refund in accordance with the Customs Act, applying the principle in Ranbaxy Laboratories.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
