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 CESTAT dismissed the appellant's refund claim, holding that no refund was payable for differential duty and interest on clearances of intravenous fluids where the appellant had availed CENVAT credit and paid duty during the claim period. The Tribunal found the appellant had not challenged the assessed liability by appellate proceedings and had not produced any order setting aside the duty so paid. The Bench held that the law declared by the SC is binding under Article 141, and that decisions cited by the appellant were not binding precedents on the statutory regime under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004; accordingly the appeal lacks merit and is dismissed.
The CESTAT dismissed the appellant's refund claim, holding that no refund was payable for differential duty and interest on clearances of intravenous fluids where the appellant had availed CENVAT credit and paid duty during the claim period. The Tribunal found the appellant had not challenged the assessed liability by appellate proceedings and had not produced any order setting aside the duty so paid. The Bench held that the law declared by the SC is binding under Article 141, and that decisions cited by the appellant were not binding precedents on the statutory regime under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004; accordingly the appeal lacks merit and is dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.