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 partially allowed the appeal concerning CENVAT credit on dumpers/tippers under operating lease. While credit was previously permitted, Notification 25/2010-CE mandated registration in service provider's name for eligibility. As vehicles were registered with lessor SEFPL, not appellant, credit was disallowed. Interest demand upheld per SC's compensatory principle in Pratibha Processors. However, extended period limitation and penalties were set aside due to genuine belief supported by prior favorable rulings before March 2011 notification. CESTAT found no evidence of duty evasion intent, concluding appellant acted under reasonable interpretation of Rule 4(3) during the ambiguous period.
CESTAT partially allowed the appeal concerning CENVAT credit on dumpers/tippers under operating lease. While credit was previously permitted, Notification 25/2010-CE mandated registration in service provider's name for eligibility. As vehicles were registered with lessor SEFPL, not appellant, credit was disallowed. Interest demand upheld per SC's compensatory principle in Pratibha Processors. However, extended period limitation and penalties were set aside due to genuine belief supported by prior favorable rulings before March 2011 notification. CESTAT found no evidence of duty evasion intent, concluding appellant acted under reasonable interpretation of Rule 4(3) during the ambiguous period.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.