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 assessee's request for fixation of special rate of brand-rate drawback was rejected due to non-fulfilment of basic requirements and time limitation. The assessee exported six consignments in 2006 under the claim of drawback at brand-rate and claimed to have filed an application for fixation of special rate u/r 6(1)(a) of the Drawback Rules, 1995. However, the assessee could not produce evidence of filing the application with the Commissioner of Central Excise within the stipulated time-limit u/r 6(1)(a). The application was filed before the proper authority only in 2012, while the exports were made in 2006. The time-limit prescribed u/r 6(1)(a) is a mandatory condition for consideration of the application. Since the assessee did not file the application within the mandatory time-limit or the condonable period, the adjudicating authority rightly rejected the application. The appellate tribunal upheld the order and dismissed the appeal.
The assessee's request for fixation of special rate of brand-rate drawback was rejected due to non-fulfilment of basic requirements and time limitation. The assessee exported six consignments in 2006 under the claim of drawback at brand-rate and claimed to have filed an application for fixation of special rate u/r 6(1)(a) of the Drawback Rules, 1995. However, the assessee could not produce evidence of filing the application with the Commissioner of Central Excise within the stipulated time-limit u/r 6(1)(a). The application was filed before the proper authority only in 2012, while the exports were made in 2006. The time-limit prescribed u/r 6(1)(a) is a mandatory condition for consideration of the application. Since the assessee did not file the application within the mandatory time-limit or the condonable period, the adjudicating authority rightly rejected the application. The appellate tribunal upheld the order and dismissed the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.