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" ?
This case deals with the issuance of an addendum/corrigendum to a show cause notice after a six-month gap, refund of accumulated CENVAT credit availed on export of services, and refund of Swachh Bharat Cess. The Tribunal held that there is no legal infirmity in issuing an addendum to supplement allegations in the original show cause notice. Regarding the refund claim for CENVAT credit on exported services, the Tribunal remanded the matter to allow the appellant to produce relevant supporting documents to fulfill the notification conditions, citing precedents that substantive benefits cannot be denied for procedural lapses. On the refund of Swachh Bharat Cess, the Tribunal relied on previous decisions allowing utilization of CENVAT credit for discharging the cess and entitlement to refund, despite the appellant's earlier letter not pressing the claim.
This case deals with the issuance of an addendum/corrigendum to a show cause notice after a six-month gap, refund of accumulated CENVAT credit availed on export of services, and refund of Swachh Bharat Cess. The Tribunal held that there is no legal infirmity in issuing an addendum to supplement allegations in the original show cause notice. Regarding the refund claim for CENVAT credit on exported services, the Tribunal remanded the matter to allow the appellant to produce relevant supporting documents to fulfill the notification conditions, citing precedents that substantive benefits cannot be denied for procedural lapses. On the refund of Swachh Bharat Cess, the Tribunal relied on previous decisions allowing utilization of CENVAT credit for discharging the cess and entitlement to refund, despite the appellant's earlier letter not pressing the claim.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.