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 adjudicated a dispute concerning duty refund, finding in favor of the appellant. The tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal challenging refund orders was procedurally flawed, as the underlying assessment order was not contested. The tribunal emphasized that challenging a downstream refund order without first challenging the primary assessment order is legally unsustainable. The Revenue's reliance on an undisclosed test report and failure to provide substantive evidence further weakened its case. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order, confirming the original refund and upholding the appellant's entitlement to the claimed duty refund.
CESTAT adjudicated a dispute concerning duty refund, finding in favor of the appellant. The tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal challenging refund orders was procedurally flawed, as the underlying assessment order was not contested. The tribunal emphasized that challenging a downstream refund order without first challenging the primary assessment order is legally unsustainable. The Revenue's reliance on an undisclosed test report and failure to provide substantive evidence further weakened its case. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order, confirming the original refund and upholding the appellant's entitlement to the claimed duty refund.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.