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 and set aside the impugned order...
Appellant allowed to claim Notification No.20/2007-CE refunds despite inadvertent filing under Notification No.56/2003-CE as revenue did not dispute eligibility
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order confirming a demand for an alleged erroneous refund. The Tribunal held that the appellant had complied with all substantive conditions of Notification No.20/2007-CE throughout the relevant period and that revenue did not dispute such eligibility; the filing of claims under Notification No.56/2003-CE was a mere inadvertent error. Refunds subsequently sanctioned under Notification No.20/2007-CE showed no infirmity in the sanctioning officer's orders. In the absence of any challenge to the original refund orders and applying established judicial principle that an appellant is not estopped from later claiming the correct exemption, the demand was unsustainable and the appeal was allowed.
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order confirming a demand for an alleged erroneous refund. The Tribunal held that the appellant had complied with all substantive conditions of Notification No.20/2007-CE throughout the relevant period and that revenue did not dispute such eligibility; the filing of claims under Notification No.56/2003-CE was a mere inadvertent error. Refunds subsequently sanctioned under Notification No.20/2007-CE showed no infirmity in the sanctioning officer's orders. In the absence of any challenge to the original refund orders and applying established judicial principle that an appellant is not estopped from later claiming the correct exemption, the demand was unsustainable and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.