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 appeal concerning refund of CVD and ACD. Original authority's rejection was based on contradictory findings - accepting CA certificate showing non-passing of duty burden while simultaneously denying refund on possibility of CENVAT credit claim. Tribunal held that refund cannot be denied on mere apprehension of future credit claims. CA certification confirmed both non-passing of duty burden and non-availment of CENVAT credit. Appellant's counsel affirmed no credit was claimed to date. Rejecting refund based on speculative grounds of potential future CENVAT credit claims was deemed legally unsustainable. Tribunal directed authorities to process the refund claim as per law.
CESTAT allowed appeal concerning refund of CVD and ACD. Original authority's rejection was based on contradictory findings - accepting CA certificate showing non-passing of duty burden while simultaneously denying refund on possibility of CENVAT credit claim. Tribunal held that refund cannot be denied on mere apprehension of future credit claims. CA certification confirmed both non-passing of duty burden and non-availment of CENVAT credit. Appellant's counsel affirmed no credit was claimed to date. Rejecting refund based on speculative grounds of potential future CENVAT credit claims was deemed legally unsustainable. Tribunal directed authorities to process the refund claim as per law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.