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 dismissed the restoration of appeal application filed by the appellant following non-appearance despite multiple hearing opportunities. The appellant's appeal was originally dismissed for want of prosecution after failing to appear for seven scheduled hearings. While the appellant submitted medical certificate citing Lumbar Spondylitis requiring three months bed rest from June 2024, CESTAT noted the medical restriction ended before several hearing dates in October-November 2024. The tribunal held that restoration of appeal is not a matter of right and is permitted only in exceptional cases with valid justification. Despite the Supreme Court precedent in CIT vs Chennappa Mudaliar requiring tribunals to decide appeals on merits rather than dismissing for non-appearance, CESTAT found the appellant failed to provide adequate reasons for consistent non-appearance and exercised its powers under Rule 21 of CESTAT Procedure Rules 1982 to pass final ex-parte order dismissing the restoration application.
CESTAT dismissed the restoration of appeal application filed by the appellant following non-appearance despite multiple hearing opportunities. The appellant's appeal was originally dismissed for want of prosecution after failing to appear for seven scheduled hearings. While the appellant submitted medical certificate citing Lumbar Spondylitis requiring three months bed rest from June 2024, CESTAT noted the medical restriction ended before several hearing dates in October-November 2024. The tribunal held that restoration of appeal is not a matter of right and is permitted only in exceptional cases with valid justification. Despite the Supreme Court precedent in CIT vs Chennappa Mudaliar requiring tribunals to decide appeals on merits rather than dismissing for non-appearance, CESTAT found the appellant failed to provide adequate reasons for consistent non-appearance and exercised its powers under Rule 21 of CESTAT Procedure Rules 1982 to pass final ex-parte order dismissing the restoration application.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
