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 refund claim, finding that the proper officer failed to issue a speaking order under Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962 when reassessing duty on shipping bills. The tribunal determined that the assessment demanding duty based on Wet Metric Tonne instead of Dry Metric Tonne was procedurally defective, as no substantive order was passed within the mandated 15-day period. Consequently, the reasons for denying the refund were deemed unsustainable, effectively supporting the appellant's claim for duty refund based on procedural non-compliance.
CESTAT allowed the refund claim, finding that the proper officer failed to issue a speaking order under Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962 when reassessing duty on shipping bills. The tribunal determined that the assessment demanding duty based on Wet Metric Tonne instead of Dry Metric Tonne was procedurally defective, as no substantive order was passed within the mandated 15-day period. Consequently, the reasons for denying the refund were deemed unsustainable, effectively supporting the appellant's claim for duty refund based on procedural non-compliance.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.