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...
Functional comparability governs software-service benchmarking: dissimilar companies are excluded, while related-party filters, margins and working-ca...
The CESTAT allowed the appeal by remand, holding that reassessment paid under protest and subsequent refund claims preclude treating the liability as unprotested; the Department failed to demonstrate written agreement to reassessment by the importer. The Tribunal ruled that, absent contrary evidence, the party's asserted date of receipt of the speaking order governs computation of the appeal period under Section 17(5), and the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in holding the appeal time-barred. The matter is remitted to the Commissioner (Appeals) with a direction to accept the claimed date of receipt, entertain the statutory protest rights, and adjudicate the appeal on merits. The decision accords binding weight to later authoritative precedent.
The CESTAT allowed the appeal by remand, holding that reassessment paid under protest and subsequent refund claims preclude treating the liability as unprotested; the Department failed to demonstrate written agreement to reassessment by the importer. The Tribunal ruled that, absent contrary evidence, the party's asserted date of receipt of the speaking order governs computation of the appeal period under Section 17(5), and the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in holding the appeal time-barred. The matter is remitted to the Commissioner (Appeals) with a direction to accept the claimed date of receipt, entertain the statutory protest rights, and adjudicate the appeal on merits. The decision accords binding weight to later authoritative precedent.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4830 
Join Channel 
