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 appellant was denied CENVAT credit on the allegation that the sender units inflated the value of Soap Noodles stock transferred to the appellant, leading to excess credit being taken. The key issues were whether the appellant is entitled to take CENVAT credit of duty paid on inputs u/r 3 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, and the consequent recovery of credit along with interest and penalty. It was held that since the appellant paid duty on the invoices issued by the sender units at 115%/110% of the cost of production as per Rule 8 of Valuation Rules, the appellant is entitled to take CENVAT credit of the duty paid. The Punjab & Haryana High Court in VG. STEEL INDUSTRY VERSUS CCE case observed that even if duty is paid in excess of the finally payable amount, unless the excess is refunded, the assessee can claim CENVAT credit as the department cannot get the duty twice. Since the higher duty paid by the supplier was not challenged by the Revenue and not refunded, the appellant correctly took the CENVAT credit. The CENVAT credit of duty paid on procurement of inputs is admissible and cannot be asked to be reversed. Consequently, no penalty can be imposed. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
The appellant was denied CENVAT credit on the allegation that the sender units inflated the value of Soap Noodles stock transferred to the appellant, leading to excess credit being taken. The key issues were whether the appellant is entitled to take CENVAT credit of duty paid on inputs u/r 3 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, and the consequent recovery of credit along with interest and penalty. It was held that since the appellant paid duty on the invoices issued by the sender units at 115%/110% of the cost of production as per Rule 8 of Valuation Rules, the appellant is entitled to take CENVAT credit of the duty paid. The Punjab & Haryana High Court in VG. STEEL INDUSTRY VERSUS CCE case observed that even if duty is paid in excess of the finally payable amount, unless the excess is refunded, the assessee can claim CENVAT credit as the department cannot get the duty twice. Since the higher duty paid by the supplier was not challenged by the Revenue and not refunded, the appellant correctly took the CENVAT credit. The CENVAT credit of duty paid on procurement of inputs is admissible and cannot be asked to be reversed. Consequently, no penalty can be imposed. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.