Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1 to 20 of 95872 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Denial of CENVAT credit distributed by the Head Office (Input Service Distributor) to a unit during April to June 2012. The denial was based on the ground that the credit was not distributed proportionately among all units based on their respective turnovers, resulting in excess credit distribution to the unit. The key points are: Prior to the amendment effective from 01.04.2016, there was no compulsion on the assessee to distribute the credit proportionately or to all units. Even if the entire credit was distributed to one unit, it cannot be denied. The situation was revenue neutral as the other units paid more duty than the attributed credit. The CESTAT Ahmedabad held that 100% credit availed by the appellant was in order as per the existing CENVAT Credit Rules during the relevant period. Based on judgments, it is settled that even if the credit is distributed to one unit only during the relevant period, it cannot be denied. The impugned order is set aside, and the appeal is allowed.
Denial of CENVAT credit distributed by the Head Office (Input Service Distributor) to a unit during April to June 2012. The denial was based on the ground that the credit was not distributed proportionately among all units based on their respective turnovers, resulting in excess credit distribution to the unit. The key points are: Prior to the amendment effective from 01.04.2016, there was no compulsion on the assessee to distribute the credit proportionately or to all units. Even if the entire credit was distributed to one unit, it cannot be denied. The situation was revenue neutral as the other units paid more duty than the attributed credit. The CESTAT Ahmedabad held that 100% credit availed by the appellant was in order as per the existing CENVAT Credit Rules during the relevant period. Based on judgments, it is settled that even if the credit is distributed to one unit only during the relevant period, it cannot be denied. The impugned order is set aside, and the appeal is allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
