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 denied refund of accumulated CENVAT credit to the appellant under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal held that services provided by overseas subsidiaries to their foreign clients did not qualify as input services for the appellant, despite invoices being raised between the holding company and subsidiaries. The appellant had incorrectly paid service tax on reverse charge basis and claimed CENVAT credit for transactions occurring outside India's territorial jurisdiction. Regarding service tax refund claims under Section 11B of Central Excise Act read with Section 83 of Finance Act, 1994, the Tribunal rejected appeals due to insufficient information and lack of proper bifurcation of refund claims, rendering potential relief unimplementable. Appeals dismissed.
CESTAT denied refund of accumulated CENVAT credit to the appellant under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal held that services provided by overseas subsidiaries to their foreign clients did not qualify as input services for the appellant, despite invoices being raised between the holding company and subsidiaries. The appellant had incorrectly paid service tax on reverse charge basis and claimed CENVAT credit for transactions occurring outside India's territorial jurisdiction. Regarding service tax refund claims under Section 11B of Central Excise Act read with Section 83 of Finance Act, 1994, the Tribunal rejected appeals due to insufficient information and lack of proper bifurcation of refund claims, rendering potential relief unimplementable. Appeals dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.