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" ?
CESTAT, an Appellate Tribunal, addressed issues regarding the invocation of the extended period of limitation due to suppression of facts leading to denial of CENVAT Credit under Rule 2(l) related to manufacturing and clearance of final products. Referring to precedents, it was held that for the extended period to be invoked, the Revenue must establish fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or contravention of laws with intent to evade duty. Since no new tangible evidence was presented, the extended period could not be invoked. Therefore, the demand for duty was found to be beyond the permissible time limit, rendering the impugned order unsustainable. The denial of CENVAT Credit was not discussed on merits due to the limitation issue. Consequently, the appeal was allowed.
CESTAT, an Appellate Tribunal, addressed issues regarding the invocation of the extended period of limitation due to suppression of facts leading to denial of CENVAT Credit under Rule 2(l) related to manufacturing and clearance of final products. Referring to precedents, it was held that for the extended period to be invoked, the Revenue must establish fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or contravention of laws with intent to evade duty. Since no new tangible evidence was presented, the extended period could not be invoked. Therefore, the demand for duty was found to be beyond the permissible time limit, rendering the impugned order unsustainable. The denial of CENVAT Credit was not discussed on merits due to the limitation issue. Consequently, the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
