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...
Functional comparability governs software-service benchmarking: dissimilar companies are excluded, while related-party filters, margins and working-ca...
CESTAT held that the appellant is not entitled to exemption under Notification No. 18/2009-ST because the requisite conditions and original documentary proof (consignment note/invoices/bills/challans, agreement with the overseas commission agent, and shipping bill disclosure) were not produced; mere filing of EXP-1/EXP-2 was insufficient. The Tribunal found the demands for the periods Oct 2009-Mar 2010 and Apr 2010-Sep 2010 to be within the limitation period and therefore upheld the demands under Section 73. The demand for interest was sustained as compensatory. However, the penalty imposed under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 was set aside. Appeal allowed in part.
CESTAT held that the appellant is not entitled to exemption under Notification No. 18/2009-ST because the requisite conditions and original documentary proof (consignment note/invoices/bills/challans, agreement with the overseas commission agent, and shipping bill disclosure) were not produced; mere filing of EXP-1/EXP-2 was insufficient. The Tribunal found the demands for the periods Oct 2009-Mar 2010 and Apr 2010-Sep 2010 to be within the limitation period and therefore upheld the demands under Section 73. The demand for interest was sustained as compensatory. However, the penalty imposed under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 was set aside. Appeal allowed in part.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4830 
Join Channel 
