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 Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order. The additional discount of 8-10% given by the appellant to JEPL was held to be a genuine trade discount and not a "Commission" disguised as a discount to suppress the value. The CESTAT held that when the invoice is issued showing separate discounts, one payable to the distributor/dealer and the other to the purchaser, the former is considered a "Commission" and inadmissible. However, when the distributor/dealer purchases on their own account, such a discount is a normal trade discount and admissible. The 55% discount (including the additional 8-10%) passed on by the appellant to JEPL for their own purchases was held to be an admissible trade discount and could not be considered a "Commission".
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order. The additional discount of 8-10% given by the appellant to JEPL was held to be a genuine trade discount and not a "Commission" disguised as a discount to suppress the value. The CESTAT held that when the invoice is issued showing separate discounts, one payable to the distributor/dealer and the other to the purchaser, the former is considered a "Commission" and inadmissible. However, when the distributor/dealer purchases on their own account, such a discount is a normal trade discount and admissible. The 55% discount (including the additional 8-10%) passed on by the appellant to JEPL for their own purchases was held to be an admissible trade discount and could not be considered a "Commission".
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
