Patent-settlement expenditure treated as commercially expedient revenue outlay, with foreign-law restrictions inapplicable before the prospective amen...
International transaction benchmarking restricts transfer pricing adjustments to associated-enterprise dealings, while functional comparability govern...
Denial of refund claimed u/s 142(3) of CGST Act for service tax paid under RCM was incorrect. Rule 9(1)(e) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 applies, not Rule 9(1)(bb), allowing credit. Imposition of equal penalty u/s 78 of Finance Act, 1994 was improper as no suppression of facts or intention to evade tax was proved. Appellant was eligible for refund u/s 142(3) of CGST Act, 2017 for CENVAT credit paid after GST implementation, though unable to avail TRAN-1 credit due to time lapse. Impugned order rejecting refund claims is set aside, and appeal allowed.
Denial of refund claimed u/s 142(3) of CGST Act for service tax paid under RCM was incorrect. Rule 9(1)(e) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 applies, not Rule 9(1)(bb), allowing credit. Imposition of equal penalty u/s 78 of Finance Act, 1994 was improper as no suppression of facts or intention to evade tax was proved. Appellant was eligible for refund u/s 142(3) of CGST Act, 2017 for CENVAT credit paid after GST implementation, though unable to avail TRAN-1 credit due to time lapse. Impugned order rejecting refund claims is set aside, and appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
