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 HC dismissed the petition challenging the rejection of a rebate claim, upholding the impugned order of the Joint Secretary. The court held that the claim was lawfully rejected because export consignments of the medicaments were not shown to have been exported directly from the Dewas unit and no ARE-I was prepared/submitted as required; ARE-I particulars and dual certification by Central Excise and Customs are mandatory for export-based rebate relief. In exercising limited judicial review under Articles 226/227, the HC declined to interfere with the revisional exercise under Section 35EE, noting rebate and export removals are subject to Rules 18-20 conditions, safeguards and manufacturer's duty liability.
The HC dismissed the petition challenging the rejection of a rebate claim, upholding the impugned order of the Joint Secretary. The court held that the claim was lawfully rejected because export consignments of the medicaments were not shown to have been exported directly from the Dewas unit and no ARE-I was prepared/submitted as required; ARE-I particulars and dual certification by Central Excise and Customs are mandatory for export-based rebate relief. In exercising limited judicial review under Articles 226/227, the HC declined to interfere with the revisional exercise under Section 35EE, noting rebate and export removals are subject to Rules 18-20 conditions, safeguards and manufacturer's duty liability.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
