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 held that the department improperly attempted to reopen a previously settled refund claim through piecemeal adjudication. The Tribunal applied the doctrine of res judicata, noting that Revenue failed to challenge the First Appellate Authority's order which had partially allowed the appellant's claim. The department's subsequent review violated judicial discipline and fundamental principles of justice administration. The Tribunal emphasized that an earlier adjudication is conclusive on the same subject matter between the same parties, and that no person should be vexed twice for the same cause. The impugned order was set aside, with the appeals allowed and consequential relief granted to the appellant.
CESTAT held that the department improperly attempted to reopen a previously settled refund claim through piecemeal adjudication. The Tribunal applied the doctrine of res judicata, noting that Revenue failed to challenge the First Appellate Authority's order which had partially allowed the appellant's claim. The department's subsequent review violated judicial discipline and fundamental principles of justice administration. The Tribunal emphasized that an earlier adjudication is conclusive on the same subject matter between the same parties, and that no person should be vexed twice for the same cause. The impugned order was set aside, with the appeals allowed and consequential relief granted to the appellant.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.