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" ?
The HC dismissed the revenue's appeal challenging a tribunal order regarding time limitation for refund claims under customs law. The court upheld the tribunal's decision that the one-year limitation period under Section 27(1B)(c) commences from the date of final assessment rather than from the date of provisional duty payment. The HC agreed with precedent establishing that where assessment is provisional, the refund application timeline must be calculated from finalization of assessment, not initial duty payment. The court found no substantial question of law arose from the tribunal's order, which correctly applied statutory provisions over contrary interpretations of Notification No. 93/2008. The appeal was dismissed as devoid of merit, affirming the taxpayer's position on refund claim timing requirements.
The HC dismissed the revenue's appeal challenging a tribunal order regarding time limitation for refund claims under customs law. The court upheld the tribunal's decision that the one-year limitation period under Section 27(1B)(c) commences from the date of final assessment rather than from the date of provisional duty payment. The HC agreed with precedent establishing that where assessment is provisional, the refund application timeline must be calculated from finalization of assessment, not initial duty payment. The court found no substantial question of law arose from the tribunal's order, which correctly applied statutory provisions over contrary interpretations of Notification No. 93/2008. The appeal was dismissed as devoid of merit, affirming the taxpayer's position on refund claim timing requirements.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.