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" ?
Appellant, a proprietary firm, was levied penalty for involvement in illegality by not receiving goods and receiving invoices only with intention to avail CENVAT credit and clearing goods without payment of duty. Main appellant settled dues under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme Rules 2019. Tribunal held that discrepancy in stock at consignee's factory cannot lead to adverse inference against appellant as it could be due to various reasons, not attributable solely to appellant among all suppliers. Consignee made payments by cheques for goods supplied under 18 invoices. Respondent did not dispute RG 23D Register and quarterly CENVAT returns showing details of credit availed and passed on. Considering these facts and main appellant settling dues under Scheme allowing waiver of interest and penalty to co-noticee, penalty against appellant as co-noticee was set aside. Appeal allowed.
Appellant, a proprietary firm, was levied penalty for involvement in illegality by not receiving goods and receiving invoices only with intention to avail CENVAT credit and clearing goods without payment of duty. Main appellant settled dues under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme Rules 2019. Tribunal held that discrepancy in stock at consignee's factory cannot lead to adverse inference against appellant as it could be due to various reasons, not attributable solely to appellant among all suppliers. Consignee made payments by cheques for goods supplied under 18 invoices. Respondent did not dispute RG 23D Register and quarterly CENVAT returns showing details of credit availed and passed on. Considering these facts and main appellant settling dues under Scheme allowing waiver of interest and penalty to co-noticee, penalty against appellant as co-noticee was set aside. Appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.