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 determined refund claim's limitation period starts from final adjudication date (13.10.2015), not provisional assessment date. Refund application filed on 30.11.2015 was within limitation under Section 27 of Customs Act. Regarding unjust enrichment, Chartered Accountant's certificate validly demonstrated duty burden was not passed to customers. Lower authorities erred in dismissing CA certificate without cogent reasons. Appellant's accounting records showed excess duty paid on raw materials was not incorporated into final product costs. CESTAT held appellant entitled to refund as requirements under Section 18 of Customs Act were satisfied and unjust enrichment doctrine not applicable. Appeal allowed with consequential relief.
CESTAT determined refund claim's limitation period starts from final adjudication date (13.10.2015), not provisional assessment date. Refund application filed on 30.11.2015 was within limitation under Section 27 of Customs Act. Regarding unjust enrichment, Chartered Accountant's certificate validly demonstrated duty burden was not passed to customers. Lower authorities erred in dismissing CA certificate without cogent reasons. Appellant's accounting records showed excess duty paid on raw materials was not incorporated into final product costs. CESTAT held appellant entitled to refund as requirements under Section 18 of Customs Act were satisfied and unjust enrichment doctrine not applicable. Appeal allowed with consequential relief.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.