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 HC held that the Appellate Authority erred in reversing the adjudicating authority's unchallenged finding that the refund application was within the limitation period. Under Section 128A(3) of the Customs Act, the Appellate Authority lacks jurisdiction to overturn favorable findings to the appellant absent a challenge by respondents. The provisos to Section 128A(3) explicitly empower the Appellate Authority only to enhance penalties or address short levy and erroneous refunds upon meeting prescribed conditions, not to revisit limitation findings. The Tribunal rightly found the Appellate Authority exceeded its jurisdiction and ordered a limited remand to restrict its consideration solely to the merits of the Board's Circular interpretation, excluding limitation issues. The appeal was dismissed accordingly.
The HC held that the Appellate Authority erred in reversing the adjudicating authority's unchallenged finding that the refund application was within the limitation period. Under Section 128A(3) of the Customs Act, the Appellate Authority lacks jurisdiction to overturn favorable findings to the appellant absent a challenge by respondents. The provisos to Section 128A(3) explicitly empower the Appellate Authority only to enhance penalties or address short levy and erroneous refunds upon meeting prescribed conditions, not to revisit limitation findings. The Tribunal rightly found the Appellate Authority exceeded its jurisdiction and ordered a limited remand to restrict its consideration solely to the merits of the Board's Circular interpretation, excluding limitation issues. The appeal was dismissed accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.