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 dismissed the application for rectification of mistake in Final Order No. 58770 of 2024. The Tribunal held that the alleged error in comparing product features did not constitute a "mistake apparent from record" as per established judicial precedent. The comparison required complex reasoning and could potentially yield multiple interpretations. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant, through new counsel, was essentially seeking a re-hearing disguised as a mistake rectification application. Consequently, the application was denied and consigned to records, maintaining the original order's integrity without substantive modification.
CESTAT dismissed the application for rectification of mistake in Final Order No. 58770 of 2024. The Tribunal held that the alleged error in comparing product features did not constitute a "mistake apparent from record" as per established judicial precedent. The comparison required complex reasoning and could potentially yield multiple interpretations. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant, through new counsel, was essentially seeking a re-hearing disguised as a mistake rectification application. Consequently, the application was denied and consigned to records, maintaining the original order's integrity without substantive modification.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
