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 held that the Revenue's absolute confiscation and ex parte disposal of seized gold while the matter was sub judice constituted a breach of natural justice; the adjudicating authority's order was set aside and the appeal allowed. The Tribunal directed refund to the Appellant of the value differential of the disposed gold with statutory interest from the date of disposal, subject to deduction of the redemption fine imposed by the revisional order, such fine being properly deductible where the Appellant seeks return of the gold or its market value. The Revenue's failure to inform the Appellant and to seek appellate permission rendered its disposal action unlawful.
CESTAT held that the Revenue's absolute confiscation and ex parte disposal of seized gold while the matter was sub judice constituted a breach of natural justice; the adjudicating authority's order was set aside and the appeal allowed. The Tribunal directed refund to the Appellant of the value differential of the disposed gold with statutory interest from the date of disposal, subject to deduction of the redemption fine imposed by the revisional order, such fine being properly deductible where the Appellant seeks return of the gold or its market value. The Revenue's failure to inform the Appellant and to seek appellate permission rendered its disposal action unlawful.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.