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 in part, set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority for fresh decision. The Tribunal held that goods classifiable under Chapter 31 attract the nil rate under the notification unless it can be established that they are "clearly not to be used" in manufacture of other fertilisers; mere suspicion or probability is insufficient to deny exemption. The Tribunal found lower authorities misapplied the amended scope of the notification and that on the recorded facts it could not conclude exclusion applied. The show-cause notice is restored for reconsideration in light of the correct legal interpretation and the appellant's submissions.
CESTAT allowed the appeal in part, set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority for fresh decision. The Tribunal held that goods classifiable under Chapter 31 attract the nil rate under the notification unless it can be established that they are "clearly not to be used" in manufacture of other fertilisers; mere suspicion or probability is insufficient to deny exemption. The Tribunal found lower authorities misapplied the amended scope of the notification and that on the recorded facts it could not conclude exclusion applied. The show-cause notice is restored for reconsideration in light of the correct legal interpretation and the appellant's submissions.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.