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 HC dismissed the Petitioner's challenge to the Assistant Commissioner (Refund) order insofar as merits before the Commissioner (Appeals) are concerned, noting the forfeiture of the EMD was effected by the Commissioner of Customs and the Commissioner (Appeals) refused jurisdiction treating the dispute as contractual. In the exercise of discretion, the HC permitted the Petitioner to institute an appeal before CESTAT contesting both the refund order dated 30 April 2024 and the Commissioner (Appeals) order dated 7 July 2025; the appeal must be filed within two weeks and both orders annexed. CESTAT is directed to admit and adjudicate the appeal on merits, including whether the EMD forfeiture complied with law. Petition disposed.
The HC dismissed the Petitioner's challenge to the Assistant Commissioner (Refund) order insofar as merits before the Commissioner (Appeals) are concerned, noting the forfeiture of the EMD was effected by the Commissioner of Customs and the Commissioner (Appeals) refused jurisdiction treating the dispute as contractual. In the exercise of discretion, the HC permitted the Petitioner to institute an appeal before CESTAT contesting both the refund order dated 30 April 2024 and the Commissioner (Appeals) order dated 7 July 2025; the appeal must be filed within two weeks and both orders annexed. CESTAT is directed to admit and adjudicate the appeal on merits, including whether the EMD forfeiture complied with law. Petition disposed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
