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 appellant's appeal against remand order denying Swachh Bharat Cess rebate under N/N. 39/2012-ST for exported services. The Tribunal held that SBC is not part of CENVAT Credit under CENVAT Credit Rules, citing Delhi HC precedent. Original authority had already established compliance with notification conditions including service export, duty payment, and non-availment of CENVAT Credit on SBC component. Appellant's services were classified as Business Auxiliary and Business Support Services, not intermediary services, based on prior CESTAT decision in appellant's own case. Limitation period was satisfied as rebate application was filed within prescribed timeframe from quarter-end when FIRC was received. Commissioner (Appeals) erred in remanding matter without justification despite original authority's proper examination based on documentary evidence. Appeal allowed, remand order set aside.
CESTAT allowed the appellant's appeal against remand order denying Swachh Bharat Cess rebate under N/N. 39/2012-ST for exported services. The Tribunal held that SBC is not part of CENVAT Credit under CENVAT Credit Rules, citing Delhi HC precedent. Original authority had already established compliance with notification conditions including service export, duty payment, and non-availment of CENVAT Credit on SBC component. Appellant's services were classified as Business Auxiliary and Business Support Services, not intermediary services, based on prior CESTAT decision in appellant's own case. Limitation period was satisfied as rebate application was filed within prescribed timeframe from quarter-end when FIRC was received. Commissioner (Appeals) erred in remanding matter without justification despite original authority's proper examination based on documentary evidence. Appeal allowed, remand order set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.