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" ?
Reversal of CENVAT Credit - Exemption to SEZ Units - The Tribunal analyzed relevant legal provisions and found no restriction prohibiting the SEZ Unit from utilizing Cenvat credit of a non-SEZ Unit. It held that there was no statutory basis for denying such utilization. - The Tribunal noted that the sole basis for denying the Appellant the ability to utilize Cenvat credit was the view that the centralized registration appeared to be invalid due to differing invoicing series. However, it ruled that there was no statutory requirement for identical invoicing series under centralized registration. Thus, it found the basis for denial to be erroneous and without legal merit.
Reversal of CENVAT Credit - Exemption to SEZ Units - The Tribunal analyzed relevant legal provisions and found no restriction prohibiting the SEZ Unit from utilizing Cenvat credit of a non-SEZ Unit. It held that there was no statutory basis for denying such utilization. - The Tribunal noted that the sole basis for denying the Appellant the ability to utilize Cenvat credit was the view that the centralized registration appeared to be invalid due to differing invoicing series. However, it ruled that there was no statutory requirement for identical invoicing series under centralized registration. Thus, it found the basis for denial to be erroneous and without legal merit.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
