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 and set aside the impugned order that denied SHIS benefit and confirmed a demand of Rs.3,89,82,117 with interest. The Tribunal found that the appellant had surrendered the zero-duty EPCG benefit and paid Rs.57,75,000 (duty and interest) and that DGFT regularized the transaction by issuing duty-paid regularization letters, thereby validating simultaneous availment flexibility under applicable public notice and customs circulars. Applying the ratio of prior CESTAT authority, the Tribunal held the demand unsustainable as the appellant elected to surrender the EPCG benefit and complied with regularization, and accordingly dismissed the revenue demand and allowed the appeal.
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order that denied SHIS benefit and confirmed a demand of Rs.3,89,82,117 with interest. The Tribunal found that the appellant had surrendered the zero-duty EPCG benefit and paid Rs.57,75,000 (duty and interest) and that DGFT regularized the transaction by issuing duty-paid regularization letters, thereby validating simultaneous availment flexibility under applicable public notice and customs circulars. Applying the ratio of prior CESTAT authority, the Tribunal held the demand unsustainable as the appellant elected to surrender the EPCG benefit and complied with regularization, and accordingly dismissed the revenue demand and allowed the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.