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 dismissed the Department's appeal challenging entitlement to interest under Section 27A of the Customs Act in respect of refund of additional customs duty under Section 3(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, holding the appeal untenable. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's request to keep the matter in abeyance pending a higher forum's appeal, explaining that pending proceedings in a superior court do not automatically preclude adjudication in the appellate forum absent a stay. Applying and respectfully following the ratio of the Madras HC decision in the respondent's own case, and noting no stay had been shown, the Tribunal held the respondent entitled to interest from three months after filing the refund claim and set aside the departmental appeal.
CESTAT dismissed the Department's appeal challenging entitlement to interest under Section 27A of the Customs Act in respect of refund of additional customs duty under Section 3(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, holding the appeal untenable. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's request to keep the matter in abeyance pending a higher forum's appeal, explaining that pending proceedings in a superior court do not automatically preclude adjudication in the appellate forum absent a stay. Applying and respectfully following the ratio of the Madras HC decision in the respondent's own case, and noting no stay had been shown, the Tribunal held the respondent entitled to interest from three months after filing the refund claim and set aside the departmental appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.