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 Tribunal held that discounts passed by the appellant to dealers do not satisfy the requirement of trade discount for deduction, as the discount is declared for a particular model and the end-user does not receive it, making it arbitrary. Regarding the extended period of limitation, the appellant followed the mechanism of passing incentives/discounts since 2008, and the department raised no objection until after the Tata Motors Ltd. judgment. The demand was computed based on available records, and no suppression or mis-declaration of facts occurred. In the absence of suppression or mis-declaration, the larger period of limitation cannot be invoked. Consequently, the demand is barred by limitation. The impugned order is modified, and the appeal is allowed on the ground of limitation only.
The Tribunal held that discounts passed by the appellant to dealers do not satisfy the requirement of trade discount for deduction, as the discount is declared for a particular model and the end-user does not receive it, making it arbitrary. Regarding the extended period of limitation, the appellant followed the mechanism of passing incentives/discounts since 2008, and the department raised no objection until after the Tata Motors Ltd. judgment. The demand was computed based on available records, and no suppression or mis-declaration of facts occurred. In the absence of suppression or mis-declaration, the larger period of limitation cannot be invoked. Consequently, the demand is barred by limitation. The impugned order is modified, and the appeal is allowed on the ground of limitation only.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.