Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
Governmental authority status supports construction-service exemption, while pre-cutoff contract and stamp-duty compliance requires verification on re...
Page of 4826
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
81 to 100 of 96510 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 impugned adjudicatory order and allowed the appeal, finding the demand unsustainable. The Tribunal held the adjudicating and appellate authorities issued a non-speaking order, failed to appreciate reconciliation documents and evidence, and erred in taxability analysis - including wrongly treating Public Village Telephone receipts as taxable, misapplying Rule 6(1) of STR 1994, and disregarding rounding and arrears valuation issues. Because the demand was inflated and the appellant had demonstrated nil liability on the merits, the CESTAT quashed the demand and remitted no further relief, concluding the departmental action lacked adequate reasoning and violated principles of natural justice.
CESTAT set aside the impugned adjudicatory order and allowed the appeal, finding the demand unsustainable. The Tribunal held the adjudicating and appellate authorities issued a non-speaking order, failed to appreciate reconciliation documents and evidence, and erred in taxability analysis - including wrongly treating Public Village Telephone receipts as taxable, misapplying Rule 6(1) of STR 1994, and disregarding rounding and arrears valuation issues. Because the demand was inflated and the appellant had demonstrated nil liability on the merits, the CESTAT quashed the demand and remitted no further relief, concluding the departmental action lacked adequate reasoning and violated principles of natural justice.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4826 
Join Channel 
