Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
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...
Page of 4819
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
501 to 520 of 96363 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Recovery of irregular or excess suo motu credit under Notification No. 39/2001-CE is treated as recovery of excise duty erroneously refunded where the credit is not reversed. The limitation applicable to erroneous refunds therefore governs such recovery. A recovery notice issued more than five years after credit was taken was time-barred, rendering the related demand, interest and penalty unsustainable. Annual differential-duty credit taken after submission of the prescribed statement and prolonged inaction by the jurisdictional officer was treated as compliant with the notification. Revenue authorities' cited decisions on different forms of suo motu adjustment or refund did not apply. The impugned order was consequently set aside.
Recovery of irregular or excess suo motu credit under Notification No. 39/2001-CE is treated as recovery of excise duty erroneously refunded where the credit is not reversed. The limitation applicable to erroneous refunds therefore governs such recovery. A recovery notice issued more than five years after credit was taken was time-barred, rendering the related demand, interest and penalty unsustainable. Annual differential-duty credit taken after submission of the prescribed statement and prolonged inaction by the jurisdictional officer was treated as compliant with the notification. Revenue authorities' cited decisions on different forms of suo motu adjustment or refund did not apply. The impugned order was consequently set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
