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 extended period of limitation for recovery of export benefit demands under the Act of 1962 cannot be invoked as all relevant facts were known to the department when the first show cause notice (SCN) was issued. The issuance of multiple SCNs for the same period and products by different wings of the Customs department was impermissible, rendering the second SCN invalid. The charge of suppression of facts against the appellants was unsustainable, given the departmental divergence on product classification and lack of clarity. Furthermore, since the DGFT had not cancelled the MEIS scrips, Customs lacked jurisdiction to deny benefits or reclassify goods. Consequently, the impugned order confirming demands was set aside on grounds of limitation and jurisdiction, and the appeal was allowed.
The CESTAT held that the extended period of limitation for recovery of export benefit demands under the Act of 1962 cannot be invoked as all relevant facts were known to the department when the first show cause notice (SCN) was issued. The issuance of multiple SCNs for the same period and products by different wings of the Customs department was impermissible, rendering the second SCN invalid. The charge of suppression of facts against the appellants was unsustainable, given the departmental divergence on product classification and lack of clarity. Furthermore, since the DGFT had not cancelled the MEIS scrips, Customs lacked jurisdiction to deny benefits or reclassify goods. Consequently, the impugned order confirming demands was set aside on grounds of limitation and jurisdiction, and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.