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 allowed the appeal. The appellant had been adjusting duty payments considering sale price at factory gate and ex-C&F depot price, resulting in excess and short payments. The appellant informed the department about the price details since 2009. The CESTAT held that invoking extended period of limitation u/s 11A(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was wrong as there was no fraud, wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts with intent to evade duty by the appellant. The impugned order confirming the show cause notice demanding short payment of duty was set aside as legally unsustainable on the point of time limitation.
The CESTAT allowed the appeal. The appellant had been adjusting duty payments considering sale price at factory gate and ex-C&F depot price, resulting in excess and short payments. The appellant informed the department about the price details since 2009. The CESTAT held that invoking extended period of limitation u/s 11A(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was wrong as there was no fraud, wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts with intent to evade duty by the appellant. The impugned order confirming the show cause notice demanding short payment of duty was set aside as legally unsustainable on the point of time limitation.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
