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 after the 2014 amendment to section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962, neither the Tribunal nor the Commissioner (Appeals) possess the power to waive pre-deposit requirements. Multiple judicial precedents, including SC, Delhi HC, and MP HC decisions, consistently affirmed that statutory pre-deposit conditions are mandatory and cannot be circumvented due to financial constraints. The appellant failed to satisfy the mandatory pre-deposit provision, resulting in the direct dismissal of the appeal, with courts emphasizing that when a statute prescribes specific appeal conditions, those conditions must be strictly complied with as a prerequisite for appeal admission.
CESTAT held that after the 2014 amendment to section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962, neither the Tribunal nor the Commissioner (Appeals) possess the power to waive pre-deposit requirements. Multiple judicial precedents, including SC, Delhi HC, and MP HC decisions, consistently affirmed that statutory pre-deposit conditions are mandatory and cannot be circumvented due to financial constraints. The appellant failed to satisfy the mandatory pre-deposit provision, resulting in the direct dismissal of the appeal, with courts emphasizing that when a statute prescribes specific appeal conditions, those conditions must be strictly complied with as a prerequisite for appeal admission.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.