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 appeal concerning excise duty liability on packing/repacking activities of construction equipment parts. The Tribunal held that Wheeled Tractor Loader Backhoe and Vibratory Compactor were not classified as "automobiles" prior to 29.04.2010, therefore no excise duty was leviable on packing/repacking of their parts before this date. Following the Larger Bench decision in Action Construction Equipment, Notification No. 11/2011 was deemed prospective from 29.04.2010. Post-amendment, only WTLB qualified as "automobile" under Serial No. 100A, making excise duty applicable on its parts packing/repacking, which appellants had already paid with interest. Vibratory Compactor remained excluded from Serial No. 100A classification, rendering no excise duty liability on its parts packing/repacking activities throughout the relevant period from 01.06.2006 to 30.06.2011. The Commissioner's impugned order dated 27.02.2012 was set aside.
CESTAT allowed the appeal concerning excise duty liability on packing/repacking activities of construction equipment parts. The Tribunal held that Wheeled Tractor Loader Backhoe and Vibratory Compactor were not classified as "automobiles" prior to 29.04.2010, therefore no excise duty was leviable on packing/repacking of their parts before this date. Following the Larger Bench decision in Action Construction Equipment, Notification No. 11/2011 was deemed prospective from 29.04.2010. Post-amendment, only WTLB qualified as "automobile" under Serial No. 100A, making excise duty applicable on its parts packing/repacking, which appellants had already paid with interest. Vibratory Compactor remained excluded from Serial No. 100A classification, rendering no excise duty liability on its parts packing/repacking activities throughout the relevant period from 01.06.2006 to 30.06.2011. The Commissioner's impugned order dated 27.02.2012 was set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
