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" ?
Relevant Date - Rejection of Refund claim - The ‘relevant date’ which determines operation of bar of limitation of time, for the person who has borne the burden of tax, is not so easily placed. The default, among the several circumstances envisaged in section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944, is date of payment of tax. The original authority has not ascertained the ‘relevant date’ for this purpose. Even with that default benchmark, four of the five invoices pass muster. For that sole invoice of 20th February 2014, the lower authorities have not determined the appropriate ‘relevant date’ by applying the ‘starting points’ in section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 adapted for ‘service’ rendering any finding on bar of limitation of time to be faulty. Moreover, that the tax was charged without authority of law is not in doubt. - AT
Relevant Date - Rejection of Refund claim - The ‘relevant date’ which determines operation of bar of limitation of time, for the person who has borne the burden of tax, is not so easily placed. The default, among the several circumstances envisaged in section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944, is date of payment of tax. The original authority has not ascertained the ‘relevant date’ for this purpose. Even with that default benchmark, four of the five invoices pass muster. For that sole invoice of 20th February 2014, the lower authorities have not determined the appropriate ‘relevant date’ by applying the ‘starting points’ in section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 adapted for ‘service’ rendering any finding on bar of limitation of time to be faulty. Moreover, that the tax was charged without authority of law is not in doubt. - AT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.