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 allowed the appeal, holding that the refund claim arising from a successful challenge to an adjudication order constitutes consequential relief exempt from time limitation under Section 27 of Customs Act, 1962. The tribunal determined that amounts paid under protest during investigation are refundable without time bar restrictions, particularly when the appellant successfully overturned the original order. The Commissioner's rejection of the refund claim was deemed unsustainable, and the appellant was entitled to recover the deposited amount of Rs. 5,00,000 as the payment was made under protest and should be treated as a deposit rather than duty payment.
CESTAT allowed the appeal, holding that the refund claim arising from a successful challenge to an adjudication order constitutes consequential relief exempt from time limitation under Section 27 of Customs Act, 1962. The tribunal determined that amounts paid under protest during investigation are refundable without time bar restrictions, particularly when the appellant successfully overturned the original order. The Commissioner's rejection of the refund claim was deemed unsustainable, and the appellant was entitled to recover the deposited amount of Rs. 5,00,000 as the payment was made under protest and should be treated as a deposit rather than duty payment.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.