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" ?
Interpretation and applicability of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, regarding the recovery of erroneously refunded excise duty. It discusses whether the subsequent Supreme Court judgment in M/s Unicorn Industries, overruling M/s SRD Nutrients, would be applicable in the present case. The Tribunal observed that the Excise Officer had to follow the SRD Nutrients decision at the time of passing the order, and any subsequent change in legal position would not permit invoking Section 11A. The High Court held that the ratio of the Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise (J&K) vs. M/s Saraswati Agro Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. is squarely applicable, and the appeal was filed despite the governing judgment. Consequently, the High Court imposed a cost of Rs. 20,000/- on the appellant for filing the appeal against the settled legal position.
Interpretation and applicability of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, regarding the recovery of erroneously refunded excise duty. It discusses whether the subsequent Supreme Court judgment in M/s Unicorn Industries, overruling M/s SRD Nutrients, would be applicable in the present case. The Tribunal observed that the Excise Officer had to follow the SRD Nutrients decision at the time of passing the order, and any subsequent change in legal position would not permit invoking Section 11A. The High Court held that the ratio of the Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise (J&K) vs. M/s Saraswati Agro Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. is squarely applicable, and the appeal was filed despite the governing judgment. Consequently, the High Court imposed a cost of Rs. 20,000/- on the appellant for filing the appeal against the settled legal position.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
