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 set aside the Commissioner's interpretation of the exemption notification, holding that the phrase "for use" was incorrectly construed and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication. The appeal was allowed by way of remand for re-calculation of any demand; the respondent must demonstrate, including via its ERP records, that imported material was exclusively used for PDS supply. The Tribunal found the Department's consumption-allocation methodology unsupported as FIFO and based on assumptions. Issues of time-bar and penalty were held not open before the Tribunal absent a cross-appeal and are left to the Adjudicating Authority to decide if a demand is confirmed.
CESTAT set aside the Commissioner's interpretation of the exemption notification, holding that the phrase "for use" was incorrectly construed and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication. The appeal was allowed by way of remand for re-calculation of any demand; the respondent must demonstrate, including via its ERP records, that imported material was exclusively used for PDS supply. The Tribunal found the Department's consumption-allocation methodology unsupported as FIFO and based on assumptions. Issues of time-bar and penalty were held not open before the Tribunal absent a cross-appeal and are left to the Adjudicating Authority to decide if a demand is confirmed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.