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" ?
This case involves the rejection of an amendment u/s 149 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant sought to amend the bills of entry, citing the insertion of Explanation to Rule 96(10) of CGST Rules vide N/N.16/2020, which allowed the option to pay or not pay certain duties. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the amendment, stating that the appellant did not submit a DRI letter requesting consideration of appeals for willing importers. The CESTAT set aside the order and remanded the case, directing both parties to provide particulars of cases where similar amendments were allowed, to enable a consistent and uniform conclusion by the Adjudicating Authority. The key issues pertain to the admissibility of the amendment u/s 149, the applicability of the CGST Rules explanation, and the need for a uniform approach in similar cases.
This case involves the rejection of an amendment u/s 149 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant sought to amend the bills of entry, citing the insertion of Explanation to Rule 96(10) of CGST Rules vide N/N.16/2020, which allowed the option to pay or not pay certain duties. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the amendment, stating that the appellant did not submit a DRI letter requesting consideration of appeals for willing importers. The CESTAT set aside the order and remanded the case, directing both parties to provide particulars of cases where similar amendments were allowed, to enable a consistent and uniform conclusion by the Adjudicating Authority. The key issues pertain to the admissibility of the amendment u/s 149, the applicability of the CGST Rules explanation, and the need for a uniform approach in similar cases.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
