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 set aside the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and allowed the appellant's appeals by way of remand. The Tribunal held that there was no adjudication or show-cause notice alleging suppression of facts and therefore Rule 9(1)(b)/(bb) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and penal provisions under Section 142(8)(a) of the CGST Act, 2017 are not attracted. Payment of CVD and SAD by the appellant was suo motu to regularize excess imports under Advance Authorization and a deficiency letter is merely an opportunity to rectify bona fide defaults, not initiation of adjudication. Matters are remitted to the Adjudicating Authority to decide the refund applications afresh.
CESTAT set aside the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and allowed the appellant's appeals by way of remand. The Tribunal held that there was no adjudication or show-cause notice alleging suppression of facts and therefore Rule 9(1)(b)/(bb) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and penal provisions under Section 142(8)(a) of the CGST Act, 2017 are not attracted. Payment of CVD and SAD by the appellant was suo motu to regularize excess imports under Advance Authorization and a deficiency letter is merely an opportunity to rectify bona fide defaults, not initiation of adjudication. Matters are remitted to the Adjudicating Authority to decide the refund applications afresh.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.