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 held that the corrigendum issued for a demand related to shipments dated 10.05.2008 constituted part of the original show cause notice, as adjudication commenced only after its issuance and the appellant's response. However, since the corrigendum was issued beyond the one-year limitation period prescribed under Section 28 of the Customs Act, the demand was time-barred. The Tribunal distinguished this case from instances where an incorrect provision is cited but the claim remains valid, emphasizing that the limitation under Section 28 is strictly one year from the relevant date. Consequently, the Order-in-Original confirming the duty demand with interest on five shipping bills was set aside and the appeal allowed.
The CESTAT held that the corrigendum issued for a demand related to shipments dated 10.05.2008 constituted part of the original show cause notice, as adjudication commenced only after its issuance and the appellant's response. However, since the corrigendum was issued beyond the one-year limitation period prescribed under Section 28 of the Customs Act, the demand was time-barred. The Tribunal distinguished this case from instances where an incorrect provision is cited but the claim remains valid, emphasizing that the limitation under Section 28 is strictly one year from the relevant date. Consequently, the Order-in-Original confirming the duty demand with interest on five shipping bills was set aside and the appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
