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 CESTAT dismissed the Restoration of Appeals filed by M/s Himachal Fashion Pvt Ltd. The appellant failed to appear for hearings despite being offered seven opportunities. The appellant waited for one year after withdrawal of the earlier advocate's Vakalatnama to appoint a new advocate. The CESTAT held that Restoration of Appeal is not a matter of right and is permitted only in exceptional cases with valid reasons, which the appellant failed to provide. The CESTAT decided the case on merits based on the Appeal Memorandum and was not required to offer more than three adjournments as per the Customs Act. The appellant's lack of interest in agitating the appeals led to the dismissal.
The CESTAT dismissed the Restoration of Appeals filed by M/s Himachal Fashion Pvt Ltd. The appellant failed to appear for hearings despite being offered seven opportunities. The appellant waited for one year after withdrawal of the earlier advocate's Vakalatnama to appoint a new advocate. The CESTAT held that Restoration of Appeal is not a matter of right and is permitted only in exceptional cases with valid reasons, which the appellant failed to provide. The CESTAT decided the case on merits based on the Appeal Memorandum and was not required to offer more than three adjournments as per the Customs Act. The appellant's lack of interest in agitating the appeals led to the dismissal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
