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 held that the appellant is not entitled to notifications N/N.6/2006-CE and N/N.1/2011-CE for industrial sewing machines with externally transmitted drive components; the machines are classifiable under CETH 8452.99.90 and the suspension unit with hanging hook is an optional accessory, not a machine part, classifiable separately (CETH 8428.90.90), and therefore not exempt. The Tribunal set aside the invocation of the extended period of limitation, finding absence of requisite mens rea or concealment and attributing delay to revenue scrutiny failures. Consequentially, penalty under section 11AC of the CEA was not sustainable and was quashed. The remainder of the duty demand was upheld; appeal allowed in part in favour of the appellant.
CESTAT held that the appellant is not entitled to notifications N/N.6/2006-CE and N/N.1/2011-CE for industrial sewing machines with externally transmitted drive components; the machines are classifiable under CETH 8452.99.90 and the suspension unit with hanging hook is an optional accessory, not a machine part, classifiable separately (CETH 8428.90.90), and therefore not exempt. The Tribunal set aside the invocation of the extended period of limitation, finding absence of requisite mens rea or concealment and attributing delay to revenue scrutiny failures. Consequentially, penalty under section 11AC of the CEA was not sustainable and was quashed. The remainder of the duty demand was upheld; appeal allowed in part in favour of the appellant.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.