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 a claim for refund of interest u/s 72 of...
CESTAT ruled in favor of refunding interest under Section 72 of Finance Act, 2010 for retrospective amendment. Tribunal upheld interest on excess credit.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
The case involved a claim for refund of interest u/s 72 of Finance Act, 2010 to benefit from a retrospective amendment to Rule 6 of CCR, 2002/2004. The Tribunal held that the appellant's claim for refund of interest was not valid as the interest had already been paid in compliance with the retrospective amendment. The Tribunal noted that the appellant failed to provide evidence of filing a refund claim for the interest paid on reversed credit. Regarding excess credit, the Tribunal upheld the rejection of interest refund for Rs. 88,22,475/- but allowed interest on Rs. 1,00,10,808/- from three months after filing the refund claim. The impugned orders were modified accordingly, and the appeal was disposed of.
The case involved a claim for refund of interest u/s 72 of Finance Act, 2010 to benefit from a retrospective amendment to Rule 6 of CCR, 2002/2004. The Tribunal held that the appellant's claim for refund of interest was not valid as the interest had already been paid in compliance with the retrospective amendment. The Tribunal noted that the appellant failed to provide evidence of filing a refund claim for the interest paid on reversed credit. Regarding excess credit, the Tribunal upheld the rejection of interest refund for Rs. 88,22,475/- but allowed interest on Rs. 1,00,10,808/- from three months after filing the refund claim. The impugned orders were modified accordingly, and the appeal was disposed of.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
