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 appeals, invalidating the show cause notices issued beyond the statutory limitation period. The tribunal found no substantive evidence of intentional suppression of facts or tax evasion. The department could not justify extending the limitation period since prior notices had been issued and the financial documents were publicly available. The tribunal concluded that the Commissioner (Appeals) orders were incorrectly passed, particularly regarding the extended limitation under section 73(1) of the Finance Act. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, setting aside the previous orders and providing consequential relief to the appellant.
CESTAT allowed the appeals, invalidating the show cause notices issued beyond the statutory limitation period. The tribunal found no substantive evidence of intentional suppression of facts or tax evasion. The department could not justify extending the limitation period since prior notices had been issued and the financial documents were publicly available. The tribunal concluded that the Commissioner (Appeals) orders were incorrectly passed, particularly regarding the extended limitation under section 73(1) of the Finance Act. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, setting aside the previous orders and providing consequential relief to the appellant.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.