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 denied CENVAT credit claims totaling Rs.80,95,227/- for advertising and tour operator services. Credit was disallowed on three grounds: advertising services related to products manufactured at a different unit than where credit was claimed; tour operator services fell under the exclusion clause of "input service" definition; and certain invoices were not in appellant's name, violating Rule 9(2) requirements. Despite appellant's pre-notice reversal of credits, CESTAT upheld extended period of limitation and penalties under Rule 15(2) CCR read with Section 11AC(1)(c), finding intentional suppression of material facts. The tribunal affirmed the original order, dismissing the appeal and requiring appropriation of reversed credits to government account.
CESTAT denied CENVAT credit claims totaling Rs.80,95,227/- for advertising and tour operator services. Credit was disallowed on three grounds: advertising services related to products manufactured at a different unit than where credit was claimed; tour operator services fell under the exclusion clause of "input service" definition; and certain invoices were not in appellant's name, violating Rule 9(2) requirements. Despite appellant's pre-notice reversal of credits, CESTAT upheld extended period of limitation and penalties under Rule 15(2) CCR read with Section 11AC(1)(c), finding intentional suppression of material facts. The tribunal affirmed the original order, dismissing the appeal and requiring appropriation of reversed credits to government account.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.