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 appeal was dismissed for default by CESTAT under Rule 20 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, after the appellant failed to appear or arrange representation despite service of notice. The Tribunal found no application on record seeking adjudication on merits ex parte and observed that proceeding on merits in the appellant's absence would risk rendering any subsequent order functus officio and depriving the appellant of audi alteram partem. The dismissal was therefore sustained as the appellant manifested no interest in prosecuting the appeal and no sufficient cause for non-appearance was established. The decision leaves open the procedural remedy to seek restoration by demonstrating sufficient cause for non-appearance.
The appeal was dismissed for default by CESTAT under Rule 20 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, after the appellant failed to appear or arrange representation despite service of notice. The Tribunal found no application on record seeking adjudication on merits ex parte and observed that proceeding on merits in the appellant's absence would risk rendering any subsequent order functus officio and depriving the appellant of audi alteram partem. The dismissal was therefore sustained as the appellant manifested no interest in prosecuting the appeal and no sufficient cause for non-appearance was established. The decision leaves open the procedural remedy to seek restoration by demonstrating sufficient cause for non-appearance.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
