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 allowed the writ petition, holding the petitioner's refund claims were filed within time and that the refund granted by the original authority was consequent to the appellate proceedings culminating in the CESTAT remand and final order. The court found the one-year limitation for refund claims runs from date of import/payment provided the procedural prerequisites of Notification No.102/2007-Cus are met, which the petitioner satisfied. The HC rejected respondent's contention that a fresh claim under s.27(1-B) was required, as that provision applies only where refund follows an order of the specified appellate authorities; accordingly the petitioner is entitled to the refund and the writ is allowed.
The HC allowed the writ petition, holding the petitioner's refund claims were filed within time and that the refund granted by the original authority was consequent to the appellate proceedings culminating in the CESTAT remand and final order. The court found the one-year limitation for refund claims runs from date of import/payment provided the procedural prerequisites of Notification No.102/2007-Cus are met, which the petitioner satisfied. The HC rejected respondent's contention that a fresh claim under s.27(1-B) was required, as that provision applies only where refund follows an order of the specified appellate authorities; accordingly the petitioner is entitled to the refund and the writ is allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
