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 set aside the finding that part of the refund claim was time-barred under Section 11B, holding that payments made under protest were not voluntary and thus not subject to limitation. However, the Tribunal upheld the denial of the refund on the ground of unjust enrichment, as the appellant failed to demonstrate that the duty incidence was not passed on to the consumer. Consequently, the entire refund claim was held to be barred by the doctrine of unjust enrichment. The appellant was not entitled to any refund or interest, and the sanctioned amount was directed to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund in accordance with law. The appeal was dismissed in its entirety.
The CESTAT set aside the finding that part of the refund claim was time-barred under Section 11B, holding that payments made under protest were not voluntary and thus not subject to limitation. However, the Tribunal upheld the denial of the refund on the ground of unjust enrichment, as the appellant failed to demonstrate that the duty incidence was not passed on to the consumer. Consequently, the entire refund claim was held to be barred by the doctrine of unjust enrichment. The appellant was not entitled to any refund or interest, and the sanctioned amount was directed to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund in accordance with law. The appeal was dismissed in its entirety.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
