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 appellant was held not entitled to avail CENVAT credit on goods classified under tariff heading 8705, as such goods did not fall within the definition of "capital goods" under Rule 2(a)(A)(i) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 during the relevant period. The invoices issued by the manufacturer correctly reflected the classification and duty payment under heading 8705, which could not be disregarded by the appellant. The extended period of limitation invoked by the Revenue was found unjustified due to lack of evidence of willful misstatement or suppression of facts as required under the proviso to Section 73(1). Consequently, the demand of interest and penalty was unsustainable. The appellate tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, holding the demand barred by limitation and rejecting the appellant's liability for CENVAT credit recovery, interest, and penalty.
The appellant was held not entitled to avail CENVAT credit on goods classified under tariff heading 8705, as such goods did not fall within the definition of "capital goods" under Rule 2(a)(A)(i) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 during the relevant period. The invoices issued by the manufacturer correctly reflected the classification and duty payment under heading 8705, which could not be disregarded by the appellant. The extended period of limitation invoked by the Revenue was found unjustified due to lack of evidence of willful misstatement or suppression of facts as required under the proviso to Section 73(1). Consequently, the demand of interest and penalty was unsustainable. The appellate tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, holding the demand barred by limitation and rejecting the appellant's liability for CENVAT credit recovery, interest, and penalty.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
