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 central issue revolves around the maintainability of a single appeal filed by the Revenue against multiple Bills of Entry. As per Rule 6(A) of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982, when separate orders-in-original are passed for each Bill of Entry, the appellant is required to file separate appeals corresponding to each order. However, in this case, the Commissioner (Appeals) disposed of appeals concerning 93 Bills of Entry through a common order-in-appeal. Consequently, the Revenue is obligated to file 93 separate appeals challenging each Bill of Entry, as each assessment order constitutes a distinct cause of action. This interpretation aligns with the National Litigation Policy's stance that monetary thresholds apply to individual appeals rather than the aggregate amount. The Tribunal, concurring with prior judicial precedents, held the single appeal filed by the Revenue as non-maintainable and directed the filing of 93 separate appeals if advised.
The central issue revolves around the maintainability of a single appeal filed by the Revenue against multiple Bills of Entry. As per Rule 6(A) of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982, when separate orders-in-original are passed for each Bill of Entry, the appellant is required to file separate appeals corresponding to each order. However, in this case, the Commissioner (Appeals) disposed of appeals concerning 93 Bills of Entry through a common order-in-appeal. Consequently, the Revenue is obligated to file 93 separate appeals challenging each Bill of Entry, as each assessment order constitutes a distinct cause of action. This interpretation aligns with the National Litigation Policy's stance that monetary thresholds apply to individual appeals rather than the aggregate amount. The Tribunal, concurring with prior judicial precedents, held the single appeal filed by the Revenue as non-maintainable and directed the filing of 93 separate appeals if advised.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
