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" ?
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order dated 31.12.2021, directing refund of the contested CENVAT credit with consequential relief. The Tribunal held the refund claim was filed within the one-year limitation because duty was paid under protest and the relevant date is the Tribunal order; accordingly the one-year bar under Section 11B did not apply. The Tribunal further found Section 142(3) and 142(9)(b) of the CGST Act adequately govern cash refunds during transition to GST, and rejection on grounds of time-bar and unjust enrichment lacked merit. The Revenue's disallowance of Rs.11,98,234/- was therefore quashed and refund sanctioned as per law.
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order dated 31.12.2021, directing refund of the contested CENVAT credit with consequential relief. The Tribunal held the refund claim was filed within the one-year limitation because duty was paid under protest and the relevant date is the Tribunal order; accordingly the one-year bar under Section 11B did not apply. The Tribunal further found Section 142(3) and 142(9)(b) of the CGST Act adequately govern cash refunds during transition to GST, and rejection on grounds of time-bar and unjust enrichment lacked merit. The Revenue's disallowance of Rs.11,98,234/- was therefore quashed and refund sanctioned as per law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.