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" ?
HC allowed the petition, set aside the impugned communication of the second respondent and remitted the matter to the first respondent for fresh adjudication. The court held that the communication determining rights constituted an order and was appealable to the Appellate Authority; a Board circular relied upon by the second respondent is binding only on field formation and not on the Appellate Authority under the statutory scheme of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the Customs Act, 1962. The rejection of the appeal by reference to the circular was unjustified. The first respondent is directed to pass a reasoned order on whether the petitioner is entitled to duty drawback on the exports.
HC allowed the petition, set aside the impugned communication of the second respondent and remitted the matter to the first respondent for fresh adjudication. The court held that the communication determining rights constituted an order and was appealable to the Appellate Authority; a Board circular relied upon by the second respondent is binding only on field formation and not on the Appellate Authority under the statutory scheme of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the Customs Act, 1962. The rejection of the appeal by reference to the circular was unjustified. The first respondent is directed to pass a reasoned order on whether the petitioner is entitled to duty drawback on the exports.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.