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, a public sector undertaking, had availed CENVAT credit on the basis of 'cover notes'. However, there were concerns about potential duplication of credit, as the appellant had also taken credit on the corresponding invoices. The matter was remanded back to the original authority to verify whether credit was taken twice against the same supply of goods/services. Regarding the extended period of limitation and penalties, while the extended period was invokable for inadmissible credit taken, the Tribunal held that the penalty should have been set aside by invoking Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994, considering the appellant's status as a public sector undertaking. Consequently, the appeal was allowed in part.
The appellant, a public sector undertaking, had availed CENVAT credit on the basis of 'cover notes'. However, there were concerns about potential duplication of credit, as the appellant had also taken credit on the corresponding invoices. The matter was remanded back to the original authority to verify whether credit was taken twice against the same supply of goods/services. Regarding the extended period of limitation and penalties, while the extended period was invokable for inadmissible credit taken, the Tribunal held that the penalty should have been set aside by invoking Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994, considering the appellant's status as a public sector undertaking. Consequently, the appeal was allowed in part.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.