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" ?
Process amounting to manufacture - activity of labelling - availing the cenvat credit of the duty paid by its Jammu unit - The Supreme Court examined whether the activity of labelling carried out by the respondent at its Taloja unit constituted manufacture. The dispute revolved around the interpretation of Note 3 to Chapter 18 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, which underwent an amendment substituting 'or' for 'and'. The appellant argued that labelling alone did not constitute manufacture, while the respondent contended otherwise. The Court interpreted Note 3 to allow for independent processes, including labelling alone, to constitute manufacture. They affirmed that the Taloja unit's activity fell within this definition and dismissed the appeal.
Process amounting to manufacture - activity of labelling - availing the cenvat credit of the duty paid by its Jammu unit - The Supreme Court examined whether the activity of labelling carried out by the respondent at its Taloja unit constituted manufacture. The dispute revolved around the interpretation of Note 3 to Chapter 18 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, which underwent an amendment substituting 'or' for 'and'. The appellant argued that labelling alone did not constitute manufacture, while the respondent contended otherwise. The Court interpreted Note 3 to allow for independent processes, including labelling alone, to constitute manufacture. They affirmed that the Taloja unit's activity fell within this definition and dismissed the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.