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 dismissed the appeal and affirmed the respondent's and CESTAT's decisions, holding that the appellant failed to comply with the notification's procedural deadline for claiming fixation of the special rebate for FY 2009-10 and thus cannot obtain relief. The court found no provision in N/N.20/2007-CE making issuance of an Eligibility Certificate a precondition to claim the special rebate; consequently the appellant's contention that the respondent's certificate was prerequisite was rejected. Although the respondent had earlier indicated potential eligibility, the appellant did not file the requisite application by 30 September 2009 (nor within the 30-day condonation), and there was no ground to interfere with the impugned orders.
HC dismissed the appeal and affirmed the respondent's and CESTAT's decisions, holding that the appellant failed to comply with the notification's procedural deadline for claiming fixation of the special rebate for FY 2009-10 and thus cannot obtain relief. The court found no provision in N/N.20/2007-CE making issuance of an Eligibility Certificate a precondition to claim the special rebate; consequently the appellant's contention that the respondent's certificate was prerequisite was rejected. Although the respondent had earlier indicated potential eligibility, the appellant did not file the requisite application by 30 September 2009 (nor within the 30-day condonation), and there was no ground to interfere with the impugned orders.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.