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 ruled on interpretation of "month" under Rule 6(4A) of Service Tax Rules, 1994 regarding adjustment of excess service tax payments. Applying Section 13 of General Clauses Act 1897, the Tribunal held that singular words include plural meaning, allowing adjustment of excess tax in multiple subsequent months/quarters. The strict interpretation limiting adjustment to single month would unfairly cause unused excess amounts to lapse. Following established judicial precedents including SC rulings on statutory interpretation, CESTAT concluded appellant's adjustments across different months were valid and compliant with Rule 6(4A). Appeal allowed and impugned order set aside.
CESTAT ruled on interpretation of "month" under Rule 6(4A) of Service Tax Rules, 1994 regarding adjustment of excess service tax payments. Applying Section 13 of General Clauses Act 1897, the Tribunal held that singular words include plural meaning, allowing adjustment of excess tax in multiple subsequent months/quarters. The strict interpretation limiting adjustment to single month would unfairly cause unused excess amounts to lapse. Following established judicial precedents including SC rulings on statutory interpretation, CESTAT concluded appellant's adjustments across different months were valid and compliant with Rule 6(4A). Appeal allowed and impugned order set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.