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" ?
The CESTAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order-in-original rejecting the appellant's claim for cash refund of service tax paid under reverse charge mechanism (RCM) after GST commenced on 01.07.2017. The Tribunal found no legal entitlement under the pre-GST or GST statutory framework, including Section 174(2)(C) CGST, for a cash refund of unutilised CENVAT/credit arising from RCM payments; the appellant's reliance on natural-justice and case law was rejected. The Tribunal held the impugned orders contained no infirmity in law or fact and accordingly confirmed denial of refund, dismissing the appeal with respect to all contested refund claims.
The CESTAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order-in-original rejecting the appellant's claim for cash refund of service tax paid under reverse charge mechanism (RCM) after GST commenced on 01.07.2017. The Tribunal found no legal entitlement under the pre-GST or GST statutory framework, including Section 174(2)(C) CGST, for a cash refund of unutilised CENVAT/credit arising from RCM payments; the appellant's reliance on natural-justice and case law was rejected. The Tribunal held the impugned orders contained no infirmity in law or fact and accordingly confirmed denial of refund, dismissing the appeal with respect to all contested refund claims.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
