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 Appellate Tribunal held that the one-year limitation period for availing Cenvat credit, as prescribed under the fifth proviso to Rule 4(7) of CCR, applies from the date of invoice issuance. However, the Tribunal found that the lower authority exceeded the scope of the SCN by disputing the exact date of credit availment rather than the computation method of the limitation period. The appellant was entitled to avail the Cenvat credit within the prescribed period and did so without malafide intent. Further, the Tribunal clarified that Cenvat credit availed at any time during a month is treated as availed on the first day of the subsequent month for utilization purposes, thereby validating the appellant's claim. Consequently, the impugned Order-in-Appeal was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, confirming the admissibility of the disputed Cenvat credit.
The Appellate Tribunal held that the one-year limitation period for availing Cenvat credit, as prescribed under the fifth proviso to Rule 4(7) of CCR, applies from the date of invoice issuance. However, the Tribunal found that the lower authority exceeded the scope of the SCN by disputing the exact date of credit availment rather than the computation method of the limitation period. The appellant was entitled to avail the Cenvat credit within the prescribed period and did so without malafide intent. Further, the Tribunal clarified that Cenvat credit availed at any time during a month is treated as availed on the first day of the subsequent month for utilization purposes, thereby validating the appellant's claim. Consequently, the impugned Order-in-Appeal was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, confirming the admissibility of the disputed Cenvat credit.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.