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" ?
Time limitation rejected as appellant filed protest through letter despite not endorsing 'Under Protest' on Bills of Entry and TR-6 Challans. Appellant, a Customs Broker, filed Bills of Entry availing CVD exemption later denied by department who recovered duty with interest after one year. Appellant protested through letter seeking refund if decided in favor. Supreme Court allowed CVD exemption to importers of final products. Appellant filed refund claim which was rejected as time-barred by authorities. Tribunal held appellant's letter amounted to protest despite not mentioning 'Under Protest' as no format prescribed. No show cause notice or adjudication occurred. Amount deposited on department's insistence, not voluntarily. Refund denial as time-barred unsustainable. Impugned order set aside, appellant entitled to refund with interest. Appeal allowed.
Time limitation rejected as appellant filed protest through letter despite not endorsing 'Under Protest' on Bills of Entry and TR-6 Challans. Appellant, a Customs Broker, filed Bills of Entry availing CVD exemption later denied by department who recovered duty with interest after one year. Appellant protested through letter seeking refund if decided in favor. Supreme Court allowed CVD exemption to importers of final products. Appellant filed refund claim which was rejected as time-barred by authorities. Tribunal held appellant's letter amounted to protest despite not mentioning 'Under Protest' as no format prescribed. No show cause notice or adjudication occurred. Amount deposited on department's insistence, not voluntarily. Refund denial as time-barred unsustainable. Impugned order set aside, appellant entitled to refund with interest. Appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.