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" ?
HC held that the Commissioner (Appeals) order dated 25.03.2009 granting refund was final and binding, precluding subsequent challenges by the department. The department's attempt to re-litigate the refund claim through another Commissioner (Appeals) was deemed procedurally improper and an exercise in futility. The court emphasized judicial discipline, ruling that orders by coordinate authorities achieving finality are binding on successors. The impugned order was quashed, and the original refund order was restored, effectively upholding the petitioner's refund claim based on total duty paid across product categories.
HC held that the Commissioner (Appeals) order dated 25.03.2009 granting refund was final and binding, precluding subsequent challenges by the department. The department's attempt to re-litigate the refund claim through another Commissioner (Appeals) was deemed procedurally improper and an exercise in futility. The court emphasized judicial discipline, ruling that orders by coordinate authorities achieving finality are binding on successors. The impugned order was quashed, and the original refund order was restored, effectively upholding the petitioner's refund claim based on total duty paid across product categories.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
