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 dismissed the appeal by the appellant seeking refund of excess duty paid on clearance, holding the refund claim not maintainable where no appeal challenged the appellant's self-assessment and the appellant failed to rebut unjust enrichment. The Tribunal found documentary proof inadequate to show that central excise burden was not passed on to buyers; disclosed MRPs indicated duties and taxes were included in sale prices and the statutory presumption under sections 12A and 12 that incidence of duty was shifted to purchasers applies. Chartered Accountant certification and authorities relied upon were held distinguishable and insufficient. The appeal therefore lacks merit and is dismissed.
CESTAT dismissed the appeal by the appellant seeking refund of excess duty paid on clearance, holding the refund claim not maintainable where no appeal challenged the appellant's self-assessment and the appellant failed to rebut unjust enrichment. The Tribunal found documentary proof inadequate to show that central excise burden was not passed on to buyers; disclosed MRPs indicated duties and taxes were included in sale prices and the statutory presumption under sections 12A and 12 that incidence of duty was shifted to purchasers applies. Chartered Accountant certification and authorities relied upon were held distinguishable and insufficient. The appeal therefore lacks merit and is dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.