Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
21 to 40 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 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
