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 appeals and set aside demands for interest. It held the appellant had lawfully opted for special rates under Para 2D and refunds must be computed per the subsequently fixed special rate; after adjustment only a net excess refund of Rs.50,96,571 remained. Recovery of interest on the entire provisional refund was declared untenable. The tribunal found the interest demand was raised without issuance of a show-cause notice under s.11A CEA, breaching principles of natural justice, and noted s.11AA CEA lacks the specific erroneous-refund interest provision formerly in s.11AB. Invocation of a surety bond without first raising statutory demand was also impermissible. No interest was payable on the net excess repaid on 21.03.2023.
CESTAT allowed the appeals and set aside demands for interest. It held the appellant had lawfully opted for special rates under Para 2D and refunds must be computed per the subsequently fixed special rate; after adjustment only a net excess refund of Rs.50,96,571 remained. Recovery of interest on the entire provisional refund was declared untenable. The tribunal found the interest demand was raised without issuance of a show-cause notice under s.11A CEA, breaching principles of natural justice, and noted s.11AA CEA lacks the specific erroneous-refund interest provision formerly in s.11AB. Invocation of a surety bond without first raising statutory demand was also impermissible. No interest was payable on the net excess repaid on 21.03.2023.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.