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 allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order denying refund of differential CVD. The tribunal held that the subject Bills of Entry (BOEs) were duly re-assessed as mandated by the Supreme Court ruling in ITC Ltd., and this re-assessment order had attained finality as it was not challenged by the department. The rejection of the refund on a ground not raised by the department was deemed legally unsustainable. Consequently, the appellant was found legally entitled to the refund arising from the reassessment. The order impeding the refund was quashed, and the appeal was allowed.
The CESTAT allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order denying refund of differential CVD. The tribunal held that the subject Bills of Entry (BOEs) were duly re-assessed as mandated by the Supreme Court ruling in ITC Ltd., and this re-assessment order had attained finality as it was not challenged by the department. The rejection of the refund on a ground not raised by the department was deemed legally unsustainable. Consequently, the appellant was found legally entitled to the refund arising from the reassessment. The order impeding the refund was quashed, and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.