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 upheld the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals)'s decision dismissing the Revenue's appeal as time-barred. The review order was passed 20 days beyond the 90-day limitation period prescribed under Section 129D(3) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Revenue failed to demonstrate that sufficient cause was shown to the Board to obtain the mandated extension of 30 days under the proviso to Section 129D(3), nor did it file any application for condonation of delay before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal ruled that non-compliance with statutory time limitations cannot be mechanically condoned without adherence to legal mandates, particularly when no justifiable reasons were presented.
CESTAT upheld the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals)'s decision dismissing the Revenue's appeal as time-barred. The review order was passed 20 days beyond the 90-day limitation period prescribed under Section 129D(3) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Revenue failed to demonstrate that sufficient cause was shown to the Board to obtain the mandated extension of 30 days under the proviso to Section 129D(3), nor did it file any application for condonation of delay before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal ruled that non-compliance with statutory time limitations cannot be mechanically condoned without adherence to legal mandates, particularly when no justifiable reasons were presented.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
