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 the appeal against denial of excise duty exemption under N/N. 01/2011-CE, setting aside Commissioner's order. The Tribunal held that extended period of limitation under Section 11A(4) of Central Excise Act was wrongly invoked. Mere wrong availment of exemption notification without substantiated deliberate suppression cannot justify extended limitation period. Department failed to prove intentional evasion of duty, particularly since three prior audits found no irregularities and appellant regularly filed returns. The bona fide belief of eligibility for exemption was accepted. Show cause notice issued on 26.06.2020 was time-barred as it could only be issued within normal limitation period under Section 11A(1).
CESTAT allowed the appeal against denial of excise duty exemption under N/N. 01/2011-CE, setting aside Commissioner's order. The Tribunal held that extended period of limitation under Section 11A(4) of Central Excise Act was wrongly invoked. Mere wrong availment of exemption notification without substantiated deliberate suppression cannot justify extended limitation period. Department failed to prove intentional evasion of duty, particularly since three prior audits found no irregularities and appellant regularly filed returns. The bona fide belief of eligibility for exemption was accepted. Show cause notice issued on 26.06.2020 was time-barred as it could only be issued within normal limitation period under Section 11A(1).
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.