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 show cause notice issued under Section 111 of the Finance Act, 2013 was time-barred. The appellant had filed a declaration on 31.12.2013 under the Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme, but the notice was only served on 02.01.2015, beyond the statutory one-year limitation period. The Tribunal emphasized that "service" of notice must comply with statutory provisions, and neither issuance of the show cause notice nor pasting it on factory premises constituted proper service as required by law. Since the notice was not served within the prescribed time limit, all subsequent proceedings including demand confirmation were deemed non-maintainable. The appeal was allowed without examining the second ground regarding false declaration.
CESTAT held that the show cause notice issued under Section 111 of the Finance Act, 2013 was time-barred. The appellant had filed a declaration on 31.12.2013 under the Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme, but the notice was only served on 02.01.2015, beyond the statutory one-year limitation period. The Tribunal emphasized that "service" of notice must comply with statutory provisions, and neither issuance of the show cause notice nor pasting it on factory premises constituted proper service as required by law. Since the notice was not served within the prescribed time limit, all subsequent proceedings including demand confirmation were deemed non-maintainable. The appeal was allowed without examining the second ground regarding false declaration.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.