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 that sought to extinguish service tax credit for failure to carry it forward in statutory returns over four years. The Tribunal held that mere non-reporting of credit does not amount to its forfeiture in the absence of any misuse or wrongful utilization of the credit. Reliance on a Larger Bench decision concerning a different factual matrix was found misplaced, as there is no statutory provision prescribing a "reasonable period" for credit restoration. The appellant's failure was deemed a procedural lapse without affecting the substantive entitlement to credit. Consequently, the credit was not extinguished, and the order demanding its forfeiture was quashed.
The CESTAT allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order that sought to extinguish service tax credit for failure to carry it forward in statutory returns over four years. The Tribunal held that mere non-reporting of credit does not amount to its forfeiture in the absence of any misuse or wrongful utilization of the credit. Reliance on a Larger Bench decision concerning a different factual matrix was found misplaced, as there is no statutory provision prescribing a "reasonable period" for credit restoration. The appellant's failure was deemed a procedural lapse without affecting the substantive entitlement to credit. Consequently, the credit was not extinguished, and the order demanding its forfeiture was quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.