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 dismissed appeal regarding interest claim on refunded pre-deposit u/ss 35F and 35FF of Central Excise Act. Appellant had deposited amounts through CENVAT account reversal, which were later appropriated as duty. Though Tribunal previously allowed appellant's main appeal, the current dispute centered on interest eligibility. Following statutory interpretation and Supreme Court precedent in similar cases, CESTAT determined that since refund was processed within prescribed timeframe, no interest was payable on pre-deposit amount. The Tribunal distinguished earlier decisions allowing 12% interest, noting those cases dealt with deposits made when no specific provisions for refund with interest existed. Appeal lacked merit as current statutory framework did not mandate interest payment under these circumstances.
CESTAT dismissed appeal regarding interest claim on refunded pre-deposit u/ss 35F and 35FF of Central Excise Act. Appellant had deposited amounts through CENVAT account reversal, which were later appropriated as duty. Though Tribunal previously allowed appellant's main appeal, the current dispute centered on interest eligibility. Following statutory interpretation and Supreme Court precedent in similar cases, CESTAT determined that since refund was processed within prescribed timeframe, no interest was payable on pre-deposit amount. The Tribunal distinguished earlier decisions allowing 12% interest, noting those cases dealt with deposits made when no specific provisions for refund with interest existed. Appeal lacked merit as current statutory framework did not mandate interest payment under these circumstances.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.