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, holding that a duplicate payment of customs duty on the same import consignment does not constitute a taxable levy and is refundable notwithstanding the time bar invoked under s.27(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal found that administrative records confirmed two payments against one Bill of Entry, that departmental procedures and CBIC/JNCH policy treat such duplicate post-acceptance payments as deposits, and that lower authorities failed to consider material bank verification. Consequently the claim for refund of Rs.5,35,010/- paid twice was allowed and the refund direction was restored.
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order, holding that a duplicate payment of customs duty on the same import consignment does not constitute a taxable levy and is refundable notwithstanding the time bar invoked under s.27(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal found that administrative records confirmed two payments against one Bill of Entry, that departmental procedures and CBIC/JNCH policy treat such duplicate post-acceptance payments as deposits, and that lower authorities failed to consider material bank verification. Consequently the claim for refund of Rs.5,35,010/- paid twice was allowed and the refund direction was restored.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.