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 High Court upheld the CESTAT's ruling that the time limit of one year for filing a refund claim should be calculated from the date of final assessment, not from the date of payment of provisional duty, as per Section 27(1B)(C) of the Customs Act. The court relied on the Delhi High Court's decision in Pioneer India Electronics Pvt Ltd case and CESTAT's ruling in Suzuki Motorcycle India P. Ltd case, which held that refund claims filed within the statutory period cannot be rejected on grounds of limitation. The court rejected the Revenue's reliance on Notification No. 93/2008, which contradicted the statutory provisions. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal, finding no substantial question of law arising from the CESTAT's order.
The High Court upheld the CESTAT's ruling that the time limit of one year for filing a refund claim should be calculated from the date of final assessment, not from the date of payment of provisional duty, as per Section 27(1B)(C) of the Customs Act. The court relied on the Delhi High Court's decision in Pioneer India Electronics Pvt Ltd case and CESTAT's ruling in Suzuki Motorcycle India P. Ltd case, which held that refund claims filed within the statutory period cannot be rejected on grounds of limitation. The court rejected the Revenue's reliance on Notification No. 93/2008, which contradicted the statutory provisions. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal, finding no substantial question of law arising from the CESTAT's order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
