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 ruled in favor of the appellant, finding that the burden of duty had not been passed on to customers. The Tribunal held that when a Chartered Accountant's certificate is submitted to demonstrate no unjust enrichment, the Revenue must provide evidence to contradict it. The certificate cannot be dismissed without cogent contrary evidence. The Commissioner (Appeals) merely expressed doubt without seeking clarification from the appellant. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant had shown the differential customs duty as "receivables" in financial statements, establishing that the duty burden was not passed on. Accordingly, the impugned order directing credit to Consumer Welfare Fund was set aside, and the appellant was granted refund with interest.
CESTAT ruled in favor of the appellant, finding that the burden of duty had not been passed on to customers. The Tribunal held that when a Chartered Accountant's certificate is submitted to demonstrate no unjust enrichment, the Revenue must provide evidence to contradict it. The certificate cannot be dismissed without cogent contrary evidence. The Commissioner (Appeals) merely expressed doubt without seeking clarification from the appellant. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant had shown the differential customs duty as "receivables" in financial statements, establishing that the duty burden was not passed on. Accordingly, the impugned order directing credit to Consumer Welfare Fund was set aside, and the appellant was granted refund with interest.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.