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 set aside the Commissioner's order rejecting the conversion of 1767 shipping bills from the drawback scheme to the DFIA scheme on the ground of time limitation. It held that Section 149 of the Customs Act does not prescribe any specific time limit for conversion requests, and the three-year limitation under Article 137 or Section 29(2) is inapplicable to such proceedings before a quasi-judicial authority. The Tribunal emphasized that conversion based on documentary evidence post-export is permissible without imposing a time bar. Consequently, the conversion requests were held valid, and the bills were allowed to be converted subject to the appellant reversing the duty drawback with applicable interest within three months. The appeal was allowed, rendering the rejection order legally unsustainable.
The CESTAT set aside the Commissioner's order rejecting the conversion of 1767 shipping bills from the drawback scheme to the DFIA scheme on the ground of time limitation. It held that Section 149 of the Customs Act does not prescribe any specific time limit for conversion requests, and the three-year limitation under Article 137 or Section 29(2) is inapplicable to such proceedings before a quasi-judicial authority. The Tribunal emphasized that conversion based on documentary evidence post-export is permissible without imposing a time bar. Consequently, the conversion requests were held valid, and the bills were allowed to be converted subject to the appellant reversing the duty drawback with applicable interest within three months. The appeal was allowed, rendering the rejection order legally unsustainable.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
