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" ?
The case involves a dispute over the refund of Additional Duties of Customs (CVD) paid on re-import of goods u/s 142(3) of the CGST Act, 2017. The Tribunal, following a precedent set by a larger bench, held that it has jurisdiction to decide appeals related to refunds u/s 142(3). The appellant paid CVD post-GST introduction and sought credit under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Commissioner denied the refund citing Section 140(5) and deemed Section 142(3) inapplicable. The Tribunal found grounds to grant the refund, deeming the impugned order unsustainable. The appeal was allowed.
The case involves a dispute over the refund of Additional Duties of Customs (CVD) paid on re-import of goods u/s 142(3) of the CGST Act, 2017. The Tribunal, following a precedent set by a larger bench, held that it has jurisdiction to decide appeals related to refunds u/s 142(3). The appellant paid CVD post-GST introduction and sought credit under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Commissioner denied the refund citing Section 140(5) and deemed Section 142(3) inapplicable. The Tribunal found grounds to grant the refund, deeming the impugned order unsustainable. The appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.