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...
Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Alternative GST remedy permitted protective writ intervention for ex parte adjudication, preserving independent appellate review of input tax credit d...
Page of 4811
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
361 to 380 of 96208 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Reverse Charge (RCM) - Commissions paid to a foreign service provider - benefit of exemption under notification no. 18/2009-ST - non-discloser of detailed in the Shipping Bill - The CESTAT noted that the appellant's compliance with the procedural aspects of the notification, albeit delayed, was recognized. - The appellant successfully argued for the benefit of an exemption notification, although initially failing to meet some procedural requirements. The Tribunal's decision pivoted on the finding that there was no deliberate suppression of facts by the appellant, which is a necessary condition for extending the limitation period for tax demands.
Reverse Charge (RCM) - Commissions paid to a foreign service provider - benefit of exemption under notification no. 18/2009-ST - non-discloser of detailed in the Shipping Bill - The CESTAT noted that the appellant's compliance with the procedural aspects of the notification, albeit delayed, was recognized. - The appellant successfully argued for the benefit of an exemption notification, although initially failing to meet some procedural requirements. The Tribunal's decision pivoted on the finding that there was no deliberate suppression of facts by the appellant, which is a necessary condition for extending the limitation period for tax demands.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4811 
Join Channel 
