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 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU) seeking a refund of excess duty paid along with interest. The EOU had deposited an additional amount of duty as per the department's demand, which was later found to be incorrect. The EOU had not challenged the assessment order before any Appellate Authority. The Tribunal held that provisions of refund under Section 27 of the Customs Act and Section 11B of the Central Excise Act are only executionary and cannot modify assessment orders. Citing the case of ITC Ltd, the Tribunal emphasized that appellate proceedings should have been pursued to challenge the assessment orders. Referring to the case of Mafatlal Industries, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, stating that assessment/adjudication made under the Act cannot be ignored based on later legal interpretations.
The case involves a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU) seeking a refund of excess duty paid along with interest. The EOU had deposited an additional amount of duty as per the department's demand, which was later found to be incorrect. The EOU had not challenged the assessment order before any Appellate Authority. The Tribunal held that provisions of refund under Section 27 of the Customs Act and Section 11B of the Central Excise Act are only executionary and cannot modify assessment orders. Citing the case of ITC Ltd, the Tribunal emphasized that appellate proceedings should have been pursued to challenge the assessment orders. Referring to the case of Mafatlal Industries, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, stating that assessment/adjudication made under the Act cannot be ignored based on later legal interpretations.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
