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" ?
HC allowed petitioner's rebate claim under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, despite procedural error in filing Form Annexure-19 with ARE-1 documents on 16.06.2014. Petitioner mistakenly submitted rebate documents through wrong format but within limitation period. Respondents denied claim solely on procedural grounds while acknowledging petitioner's entitlement to rebate for duty-free exports. Court held that mere procedural oversight cannot defeat substantive claim when all requisite documents were submitted timely. Following precedent in Apar Industries case, HC ruled defective applications should be treated as continuous rebate attempts relating back to original filing date. Respondents directed to process rebate claim within twelve weeks. Petition allowed.
HC allowed petitioner's rebate claim under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, despite procedural error in filing Form Annexure-19 with ARE-1 documents on 16.06.2014. Petitioner mistakenly submitted rebate documents through wrong format but within limitation period. Respondents denied claim solely on procedural grounds while acknowledging petitioner's entitlement to rebate for duty-free exports. Court held that mere procedural oversight cannot defeat substantive claim when all requisite documents were submitted timely. Following precedent in Apar Industries case, HC ruled defective applications should be treated as continuous rebate attempts relating back to original filing date. Respondents directed to process rebate claim within twelve weeks. Petition allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
