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 allowed refund of service tax paid twice for April-June 2017 period, ruling that limitation under Section 11B of Central Excise Act 1944 does not apply. The Tribunal held that when service tax is paid twice - first legally and second inadvertently - the second payment lacks legal basis as there is no taxable event. Following precedents from Gujarat HC and earlier CESTAT rulings, it was determined that time-bar provisions are inapplicable for amounts paid under mistaken notion where no tax liability existed. The impugned order was set aside and refund claim allowed, as duplicate payment cannot be considered as tax/duty under Section 11B.
CESTAT allowed refund of service tax paid twice for April-June 2017 period, ruling that limitation under Section 11B of Central Excise Act 1944 does not apply. The Tribunal held that when service tax is paid twice - first legally and second inadvertently - the second payment lacks legal basis as there is no taxable event. Following precedents from Gujarat HC and earlier CESTAT rulings, it was determined that time-bar provisions are inapplicable for amounts paid under mistaken notion where no tax liability existed. The impugned order was set aside and refund claim allowed, as duplicate payment cannot be considered as tax/duty under Section 11B.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.