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 partly allowed the appeal. The tribunal affirmed that Rs.3,73,977 was correctly excluded from assessment under Rule 6(1) of the Central Excise Rules, but upheld a tax demand of Rs.10,75,681 for the post-POTR period and confirmed an additional service-tax liability of Rs.14,84,423 for lack of verifiable CENVAT reversal, all recoverable with interest. Invocation of the extended period was rejected for lack of willful suppression; the demand falls within the normal limitation period. Penalties under ss.77 and 78, FA 1994, were set aside on merits; consequently no waiver under s.80 was necessary. The appeal was therefore partly allowed.
CESTAT partly allowed the appeal. The tribunal affirmed that Rs.3,73,977 was correctly excluded from assessment under Rule 6(1) of the Central Excise Rules, but upheld a tax demand of Rs.10,75,681 for the post-POTR period and confirmed an additional service-tax liability of Rs.14,84,423 for lack of verifiable CENVAT reversal, all recoverable with interest. Invocation of the extended period was rejected for lack of willful suppression; the demand falls within the normal limitation period. Penalties under ss.77 and 78, FA 1994, were set aside on merits; consequently no waiver under s.80 was necessary. The appeal was therefore partly allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
