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 held that the amounts deposited by the appellant on the direction of departmental officers for detected shortages cannot be considered voluntary deposits. As the appellant contested the demand and succeeded in getting it set aside, the amounts paid were under protest and not voluntary. The deposits did not acquire the character of duty until clearance from the premises. Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 concerning limitation for refund of duty is not applicable to refund of such deposits paid under protest during an ongoing dispute. The doctrine of unjust enrichment is also inapplicable. The refund claim was allowed as there were no reasonable grounds for rejection.
The CESTAT held that the amounts deposited by the appellant on the direction of departmental officers for detected shortages cannot be considered voluntary deposits. As the appellant contested the demand and succeeded in getting it set aside, the amounts paid were under protest and not voluntary. The deposits did not acquire the character of duty until clearance from the premises. Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 concerning limitation for refund of duty is not applicable to refund of such deposits paid under protest during an ongoing dispute. The doctrine of unjust enrichment is also inapplicable. The refund claim was allowed as there were no reasonable grounds for rejection.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.