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 for invoking the extended period of limitation u/s 11A(4) of the Central Excise Act, there must be a deliberate attempt to evade payment of duty. Mere incorrect belief of the assessee regarding classification or valuation does not constitute suppression of facts. The Supreme Court precedents in Pushpam Pharmaceuticals and Easland Combines were relied upon. Since there was no suppression of facts by the assessee, the invocation of extended period of limitation was not tenable. Consequently, the appeal was allowed.
The CESTAT held that for invoking the extended period of limitation u/s 11A(4) of the Central Excise Act, there must be a deliberate attempt to evade payment of duty. Mere incorrect belief of the assessee regarding classification or valuation does not constitute suppression of facts. The Supreme Court precedents in Pushpam Pharmaceuticals and Easland Combines were relied upon. Since there was no suppression of facts by the assessee, the invocation of extended period of limitation was not tenable. Consequently, the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
