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" ?
HC upheld the Department's right to proceed with CENVAT credit assessment despite quashed show cause notice. The initial ruling specifically permitted authorities to continue proceedings to exclude value of free materials used by Assessee, following established precedent. Both adjudicating authority and CESTAT erred in interpreting that quashed SCN precluded adjudication of other demands. The Court clarified that remaining demands require factual adjudication per law, emphasizing that original Division Bench order explicitly allowed Department to proceed with value exclusion determination under Central Excise Act provisions.
HC upheld the Department's right to proceed with CENVAT credit assessment despite quashed show cause notice. The initial ruling specifically permitted authorities to continue proceedings to exclude value of free materials used by Assessee, following established precedent. Both adjudicating authority and CESTAT erred in interpreting that quashed SCN precluded adjudication of other demands. The Court clarified that remaining demands require factual adjudication per law, emphasizing that original Division Bench order explicitly allowed Department to proceed with value exclusion determination under Central Excise Act provisions.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.