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 First Appellate Authority's order that had wrongly rejected the refund claim on the ground of time limitation. The Tribunal held that the refund claim was valid and supported by the speaking Order-in-Original dated 15.12.2010, which ordered the refund of excess duty after finalization of the provisional assessment. The First Appellate Authority erred in overturning this Order-in-Original without challenging the foundational speaking order or the prior appellate order dated 13.07.2009, which had already set aside the initial rejection and had attained finality. The Tribunal found no evidence of unjust enrichment or failure on the appellant's part to pass on the tax incidence. Consequently, the denial of the refund by the First Appellate Authority was unsustainable, and the appeal was allowed, restoring the appellant's entitlement to the refund.
The CESTAT allowed the appeal, setting aside the First Appellate Authority's order that had wrongly rejected the refund claim on the ground of time limitation. The Tribunal held that the refund claim was valid and supported by the speaking Order-in-Original dated 15.12.2010, which ordered the refund of excess duty after finalization of the provisional assessment. The First Appellate Authority erred in overturning this Order-in-Original without challenging the foundational speaking order or the prior appellate order dated 13.07.2009, which had already set aside the initial rejection and had attained finality. The Tribunal found no evidence of unjust enrichment or failure on the appellant's part to pass on the tax incidence. Consequently, the denial of the refund by the First Appellate Authority was unsustainable, and the appeal was allowed, restoring the appellant's entitlement to the refund.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
