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" ?
Refund claim of excess duty denied due to unjust enrichment - goods sold based on LME price index. Revenue contended appellant booked excess duty as revenue expenditure initially, then as recoverable after favorable order, disallowing refund. Tribunal relied on prior ruling that mere accounting treatment insufficient to prove burden passed on, requiring evidence from Revenue. Appellant selling goods based on LME price index. Supreme Court ruled for such pricing, duty cannot be loaded, precluding unjust enrichment. Appellant bore duty burden paid to supplier, entitled to refund of excess duty as rightly allowed earlier. Impugned order set aside, appeal allowed.
Refund claim of excess duty denied due to unjust enrichment - goods sold based on LME price index. Revenue contended appellant booked excess duty as revenue expenditure initially, then as recoverable after favorable order, disallowing refund. Tribunal relied on prior ruling that mere accounting treatment insufficient to prove burden passed on, requiring evidence from Revenue. Appellant selling goods based on LME price index. Supreme Court ruled for such pricing, duty cannot be loaded, precluding unjust enrichment. Appellant bore duty burden paid to supplier, entitled to refund of excess duty as rightly allowed earlier. Impugned order set aside, appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.