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 ruled that the refund claim for unspent advance deposits made in January and May 2017, filed on 28.12.2018, is not barred by the time limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The tribunal held that unspent advanced deposits in the account current are not considered duty, and therefore the statutory limitation period does not apply. The refund claim was deemed valid as the amount was an advance payment, not an actual duty payment. Consequently, the lower authority's order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
CESTAT ruled that the refund claim for unspent advance deposits made in January and May 2017, filed on 28.12.2018, is not barred by the time limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The tribunal held that unspent advanced deposits in the account current are not considered duty, and therefore the statutory limitation period does not apply. The refund claim was deemed valid as the amount was an advance payment, not an actual duty payment. Consequently, the lower authority's order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
