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 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.