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 allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order of the Commissioner and held that the dredger imported by the assessee does not fall within the restricted definition of "capital goods" under CCR Rule 2(a) such that the exclusion in Rule 2(k)(v)(c) would preclude its treatment as an "input." The Tribunal construed the terms of Rules 2(a) and 2(k) contextually, applying the proviso "unless the context otherwise requires," and concluded the expression "capital goods" in Rule 2(k) must be read consistently with Rule 2(a). Consequently the exclusion clause is inapplicable and the assessee is entitled to CENVAT credit in respect of the dredger.
CESTAT allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order of the Commissioner and held that the dredger imported by the assessee does not fall within the restricted definition of "capital goods" under CCR Rule 2(a) such that the exclusion in Rule 2(k)(v)(c) would preclude its treatment as an "input." The Tribunal construed the terms of Rules 2(a) and 2(k) contextually, applying the proviso "unless the context otherwise requires," and concluded the expression "capital goods" in Rule 2(k) must be read consistently with Rule 2(a). Consequently the exclusion clause is inapplicable and the assessee is entitled to CENVAT credit in respect of the dredger.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
