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 CESTAT upheld the denial of interest on the refund of wrongly availed Cenvat credit relating to gases used in repair and maintenance during 2003-06. The amounts deposited pursuant to show cause notices were held not to be payments under protest or mandatory pre-deposits under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act but rather appropriations of inadmissible credits. Consequently, these sums did not qualify as Revenue Deposits, rendering Sections 11B and 35FF inapplicable. Since the amounts were not collected in excess of duty, only Section 11BB governed the matter. The appellant was therefore not entitled to interest on the refund, and the appeal was dismissed.
The CESTAT upheld the denial of interest on the refund of wrongly availed Cenvat credit relating to gases used in repair and maintenance during 2003-06. The amounts deposited pursuant to show cause notices were held not to be payments under protest or mandatory pre-deposits under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act but rather appropriations of inadmissible credits. Consequently, these sums did not qualify as Revenue Deposits, rendering Sections 11B and 35FF inapplicable. Since the amounts were not collected in excess of duty, only Section 11BB governed the matter. The appellant was therefore not entitled to interest on the refund, and the appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
