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 allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned duty demand and holding the appellant entitled to the exemption claimed under the notification for supplies made in connection with petroleum operations awarded through ICB. The Tribunal found the supplies were made pursuant to a purchase order by the project operator and supported by documentary evidence and official confirmation that relevant blocks were allotted via ICB, rendering the appellant, as subcontractor, eligible for exemption. The adjudicating authority's contrary conclusion was reversed on merits; because the order was unsustainable on merits, the Tribunal did not proceed to determine the limitation issue. Appeal allowed; impugned order annulled and exemption granted.
The CESTAT allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned duty demand and holding the appellant entitled to the exemption claimed under the notification for supplies made in connection with petroleum operations awarded through ICB. The Tribunal found the supplies were made pursuant to a purchase order by the project operator and supported by documentary evidence and official confirmation that relevant blocks were allotted via ICB, rendering the appellant, as subcontractor, eligible for exemption. The adjudicating authority's contrary conclusion was reversed on merits; because the order was unsustainable on merits, the Tribunal did not proceed to determine the limitation issue. Appeal allowed; impugned order annulled and exemption granted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.