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 affirmed that the adjudicating authority lacks jurisdiction to reopen or review a final assessment order under Section 17(4) of the Customs Act, which permits provisional assessment but does not authorize reopening after finality. The authority's attempt to revise the earlier assessment based on a High Court decision was erroneous, as the High Court clarified no final assessment order had been passed, and the proper remedy for aggrieved parties is to appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 128. The tribunal held that the appellants' claims for refund bypassing the prescribed appellate process were impermissible. Consequently, the appeals challenging the reopening of the assessment were dismissed for lack of merit, reinforcing that final assessment orders cannot be modified by the original adjudicating authority outside the appellate framework.
The CESTAT affirmed that the adjudicating authority lacks jurisdiction to reopen or review a final assessment order under Section 17(4) of the Customs Act, which permits provisional assessment but does not authorize reopening after finality. The authority's attempt to revise the earlier assessment based on a High Court decision was erroneous, as the High Court clarified no final assessment order had been passed, and the proper remedy for aggrieved parties is to appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 128. The tribunal held that the appellants' claims for refund bypassing the prescribed appellate process were impermissible. Consequently, the appeals challenging the reopening of the assessment were dismissed for lack of merit, reinforcing that final assessment orders cannot be modified by the original adjudicating authority outside the appellate framework.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.