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" ?
The CESTAT dismissed Revenue's appeal against refund granted to a 100% EOU. The Tribunal held that Revenue improperly issued SCNs under Section 73 without first revising the refund orders under Section 84, which was the mandatory procedure per the Delhi HC ruling in BT India. The Tribunal determined that questioning the nexus between input and output services during refund proceedings was improper, as eligibility for credit must be determined separately before refund claims. Additionally, procedural issues like non-production of original FIRCs or invoice discrepancies should not prevent substantive benefits. The extended period of limitation was invalid as SCNs were issued beyond the two-year limitation period prescribed under Section 84.
The CESTAT dismissed Revenue's appeal against refund granted to a 100% EOU. The Tribunal held that Revenue improperly issued SCNs under Section 73 without first revising the refund orders under Section 84, which was the mandatory procedure per the Delhi HC ruling in BT India. The Tribunal determined that questioning the nexus between input and output services during refund proceedings was improper, as eligibility for credit must be determined separately before refund claims. Additionally, procedural issues like non-production of original FIRCs or invoice discrepancies should not prevent substantive benefits. The extended period of limitation was invalid as SCNs were issued beyond the two-year limitation period prescribed under Section 84.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.