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" ?
CENVAT credit availed by the assessee on inputs, input services, and brand promotion services was disputed. The Tribunal held that denying credit of Rs. 6,25,651 on inputs consumed in a single day based on mere suspicion without evidence is unsustainable. Credit of Rs. 5,14,168 on returned goods cannot be denied as they were accounted for in stock records. Credit of Rs. 89,61,000 on brand promotion services availed before the final product became exempt cannot be denied invoking Rule 6. Rule 11(3) mandates reversal of credit on inputs contained in exempted final products but not on input services. Denial of Rs. 26,70,004 credit for incorrect address on invoices is improper as per Rule 9(2) proviso. Extended period demand cannot be invoked without evidence of suppression of facts. Interest u/r 14 and penalty u/r 15 cannot be levied while recovering amounts u/r 11(3)(ii). The Tribunal allowed appeals by the assessee and dismissed the revenue's appeal.
CENVAT credit availed by the assessee on inputs, input services, and brand promotion services was disputed. The Tribunal held that denying credit of Rs. 6,25,651 on inputs consumed in a single day based on mere suspicion without evidence is unsustainable. Credit of Rs. 5,14,168 on returned goods cannot be denied as they were accounted for in stock records. Credit of Rs. 89,61,000 on brand promotion services availed before the final product became exempt cannot be denied invoking Rule 6. Rule 11(3) mandates reversal of credit on inputs contained in exempted final products but not on input services. Denial of Rs. 26,70,004 credit for incorrect address on invoices is improper as per Rule 9(2) proviso. Extended period demand cannot be invoked without evidence of suppression of facts. Interest u/r 14 and penalty u/r 15 cannot be levied while recovering amounts u/r 11(3)(ii). The Tribunal allowed appeals by the assessee and dismissed the revenue's appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.