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 Appellate Tribunal set aside the impugned orders, allowing the appeals with consequential relief, if any, to the appellant. The adjudication of the show cause notice was not completed within the statutory time limit of one year prescribed under sub-section (11) of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. Despite stipulating that the matter would be adjudicated ex-parte if no cause was shown within thirty days, the Adjudicating Authority failed to adhere to this stipulation or provide reasons for the delay. The delayed adjudication violated the principles of natural justice, and the Adjudicating Authority could not endlessly wait, disregarding the statutory time limit. The order was set aside solely on the ground of non-adherence to the prescribed time limit for adjudication u/s 11A(11) of the Central Excise Act.
The Appellate Tribunal set aside the impugned orders, allowing the appeals with consequential relief, if any, to the appellant. The adjudication of the show cause notice was not completed within the statutory time limit of one year prescribed under sub-section (11) of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. Despite stipulating that the matter would be adjudicated ex-parte if no cause was shown within thirty days, the Adjudicating Authority failed to adhere to this stipulation or provide reasons for the delay. The delayed adjudication violated the principles of natural justice, and the Adjudicating Authority could not endlessly wait, disregarding the statutory time limit. The order was set aside solely on the ground of non-adherence to the prescribed time limit for adjudication u/s 11A(11) of the Central Excise Act.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.