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 appellant's refund claim, overturning the lower authority's rejection. The Tribunal determined that the refund claim filed on 24.09.2021 was not time-barred as it was submitted within one year of the Order-in-Original dated 22.07.2021 that dropped the service tax demand, satisfying Section 11B of Central Excise Act read with Section 83 of Finance Act. The principles of unjust enrichment were inapplicable since the amount was erroneously collected as service tax on SIM card sales, an activity established as non-taxable. The absence of ST-3 returns was deemed irrelevant since the appellant had no service tax liability for the period in question, making the lower authority's rejection grounds factually incorrect.
CESTAT allowed the appellant's refund claim, overturning the lower authority's rejection. The Tribunal determined that the refund claim filed on 24.09.2021 was not time-barred as it was submitted within one year of the Order-in-Original dated 22.07.2021 that dropped the service tax demand, satisfying Section 11B of Central Excise Act read with Section 83 of Finance Act. The principles of unjust enrichment were inapplicable since the amount was erroneously collected as service tax on SIM card sales, an activity established as non-taxable. The absence of ST-3 returns was deemed irrelevant since the appellant had no service tax liability for the period in question, making the lower authority's rejection grounds factually incorrect.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
