Patent-settlement expenditure treated as commercially expedient revenue outlay, with foreign-law restrictions inapplicable before the prospective amen...
International transaction benchmarking restricts transfer pricing adjustments to associated-enterprise dealings, while functional comparability govern...
Joint development agreements defer taxable transfer where possession lacks part performance, while completed flats determine consideration and exempti...
Passenger baggage re-export requires true declaration and cannot be granted indirectly through discretionary redemption of undeclared prohibited goods...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
501 to 520 of 96046 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CENVAT Credit - common inputs/input services used for manufacture of stock transferred exempted goods (lime stone) and dutiable products (Cement/Clinker) - The Tribunal clarified that the presence of two different final products (limestone as exempted and cement/clinker as dutiable) necessitates the maintenance of separate accounts for inputs/input services used. The court rejected the appellant's interpretation and emphasized that the rules apply to their situation, thus upholding the demand for payment under Rule 6(3)(i) due to the appellant's failure to maintain separate accounts. - However, the CESTAT agreed with the appellant regarding the limitation period, noting no grounds for invoking the extended period due to the appellant's transparent documentation and periodic disclosures.
CENVAT Credit - common inputs/input services used for manufacture of stock transferred exempted goods (lime stone) and dutiable products (Cement/Clinker) - The Tribunal clarified that the presence of two different final products (limestone as exempted and cement/clinker as dutiable) necessitates the maintenance of separate accounts for inputs/input services used. The court rejected the appellant's interpretation and emphasized that the rules apply to their situation, thus upholding the demand for payment under Rule 6(3)(i) due to the appellant's failure to maintain separate accounts. - However, the CESTAT agreed with the appellant regarding the limitation period, noting no grounds for invoking the extended period due to the appellant's transparent documentation and periodic disclosures.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
