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 by way of remand, setting aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order and directing the adjudicating authority to re-determine the refund application. The Tribunal held that refunds accruing post-01.07.2017 fall under s.142(3) CGST Act and must be considered in cash where applicable, and that reliance on s.142(8)(a) was misplaced because duties were voluntarily paid on reconciliation, not pursuant to recovery proceedings. However, Rule 9(1)(b) CCR, 2004 may bar CENVAT credit where duty becomes recoverable due to fraud, collusion or willful suppression; where credit is disallowed, refund claims are unsustainable. Matter remanded for fresh adjudication in light of these observations.
CESTAT allowed the appeal by way of remand, setting aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order and directing the adjudicating authority to re-determine the refund application. The Tribunal held that refunds accruing post-01.07.2017 fall under s.142(3) CGST Act and must be considered in cash where applicable, and that reliance on s.142(8)(a) was misplaced because duties were voluntarily paid on reconciliation, not pursuant to recovery proceedings. However, Rule 9(1)(b) CCR, 2004 may bar CENVAT credit where duty becomes recoverable due to fraud, collusion or willful suppression; where credit is disallowed, refund claims are unsustainable. Matter remanded for fresh adjudication in light of these observations.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.