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" ?
The CESTAT dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that Section 129A(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, explicitly excludes the Tribunal's jurisdiction over matters relating to drawback under Chapter X. The statutory language contains a clear prohibition, twice emphasized in negative terms, that ousts the Tribunal's authority when Commissioner (Appeals) orders relate to drawback payments. The CESTAT followed binding precedent from the jurisdictional High Court which confirmed that "payment of drawback" in the proviso to Section 129A prevents the Tribunal from hearing cases involving drawback recovery. The concurrent jurisdiction between Revisionary Authority and the Tribunal in drawback matters was acknowledged as potentially perplexing for litigants.
The CESTAT dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that Section 129A(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, explicitly excludes the Tribunal's jurisdiction over matters relating to drawback under Chapter X. The statutory language contains a clear prohibition, twice emphasized in negative terms, that ousts the Tribunal's authority when Commissioner (Appeals) orders relate to drawback payments. The CESTAT followed binding precedent from the jurisdictional High Court which confirmed that "payment of drawback" in the proviso to Section 129A prevents the Tribunal from hearing cases involving drawback recovery. The concurrent jurisdiction between Revisionary Authority and the Tribunal in drawback matters was acknowledged as potentially perplexing for litigants.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.