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 against the rejection of refund claims relating to service tax credit utilized for authorized operations within the SEZ. The tribunal held that the refund could not be denied solely on the ground that the services were consumed within the SEZ. It was established that the services claimed were covered under Notification No. 09/2009 and were not excluded by the subsequent amendment in Notification No. 15/2009. The amendment clarified that only services wholly consumed within the SEZ and exempt ab initio were excluded from refund, whereas services used for authorized operations remained eligible. The absence of evidence regarding approval by the approval committee was insufficient to reject the claim. Consequently, the impugned orders denying the refund were set aside, and the refund claims were allowed.
The CESTAT allowed the appeal against the rejection of refund claims relating to service tax credit utilized for authorized operations within the SEZ. The tribunal held that the refund could not be denied solely on the ground that the services were consumed within the SEZ. It was established that the services claimed were covered under Notification No. 09/2009 and were not excluded by the subsequent amendment in Notification No. 15/2009. The amendment clarified that only services wholly consumed within the SEZ and exempt ab initio were excluded from refund, whereas services used for authorized operations remained eligible. The absence of evidence regarding approval by the approval committee was insufficient to reject the claim. Consequently, the impugned orders denying the refund were set aside, and the refund claims were allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.