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" ?
CESTAT allowed the appeal by way of remand. The appeal filed on 30.02.2019 was within one month of receipt of the order in original by the appellant. The Commissioner (Appeals) mechanically rejected the appeal on the ground of limitation without considering the explanation given by the appellant for the delay. CESTAT held that the matter should be re-heard by the Commissioner (Appeals) on merits without discussing the aspect of limitation, as there was nothing on record to show that the appellant deliberately caused the delay.
CESTAT allowed the appeal by way of remand. The appeal filed on 30.02.2019 was within one month of receipt of the order in original by the appellant. The Commissioner (Appeals) mechanically rejected the appeal on the ground of limitation without considering the explanation given by the appellant for the delay. CESTAT held that the matter should be re-heard by the Commissioner (Appeals) on merits without discussing the aspect of limitation, as there was nothing on record to show that the appellant deliberately caused the delay.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
