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 involved CENVAT credit on CVD and SAD components under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The tribunal held that the appellant was entitled to a refund as they could not avail of the credit due to filing limitations. The appellant contested a previous court decision, stating it was not applicable to their case. The tribunal also ruled that cash refund of CVD/SAD was permissible u/s 142(3) of the CGST Act, citing a previous case. The Doctrine of Necessity was applied, allowing the refund due to non-availability of credit under GST regime. The appellant was granted the refund u/s 142(3) and (6) of the GST Act, setting aside the previous order.
The case involved CENVAT credit on CVD and SAD components under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The tribunal held that the appellant was entitled to a refund as they could not avail of the credit due to filing limitations. The appellant contested a previous court decision, stating it was not applicable to their case. The tribunal also ruled that cash refund of CVD/SAD was permissible u/s 142(3) of the CGST Act, citing a previous case. The Doctrine of Necessity was applied, allowing the refund due to non-availability of credit under GST regime. The appellant was granted the refund u/s 142(3) and (6) of the GST Act, setting aside the previous order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.