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 Revenue's appeal and upheld the CESTAT's finding that the assessee did not willfully suppress material facts to invoke the proviso to s.11A(1) of the Central Excise Act for an extended limitation period. The court concluded that both Revenue and the assessee had knowledge of the draw-warping activities, and the assessee's reliance on a notification did not amount to fraud, misrepresentation or willful concealment. Consequently, the show cause notice issued beyond the normal limitation was time-barred, and the CESTAT correctly set aside demands predicated on the extended period; substantial questions of law were answered for the assessee and against the Revenue.
The HC dismissed the Revenue's appeal and upheld the CESTAT's finding that the assessee did not willfully suppress material facts to invoke the proviso to s.11A(1) of the Central Excise Act for an extended limitation period. The court concluded that both Revenue and the assessee had knowledge of the draw-warping activities, and the assessee's reliance on a notification did not amount to fraud, misrepresentation or willful concealment. Consequently, the show cause notice issued beyond the normal limitation was time-barred, and the CESTAT correctly set aside demands predicated on the extended period; substantial questions of law were answered for the assessee and against the Revenue.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
