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 dismissed the appeal and upheld rejection of the...
Refund claim dismissed as time-barred under s.142(5); non-obstante clause read restrictively, merits not decided, self-assessment payments not mere deposit
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 dismissed the appeal and upheld rejection of the appellant's refund claim as time-barred under s.142(5) of the CGST Act, holding the embedded non-obstante clause must be read restrictively and does not override limiting provisions; the claim therefore fell outside the statutory period. The Tribunal declined to adjudicate merits of unjust enrichment at this stage, noting the presumption that a trader passes on tax and that credit-note assertions may require verification. Taxes paid pursuant to a valid self-assessment were not characterized as a mere deposit. Minor inconsistencies in prior orders were found immaterial. Appeal disposed of.
CESTAT dismissed the appeal and upheld rejection of the appellant's refund claim as time-barred under s.142(5) of the CGST Act, holding the embedded non-obstante clause must be read restrictively and does not override limiting provisions; the claim therefore fell outside the statutory period. The Tribunal declined to adjudicate merits of unjust enrichment at this stage, noting the presumption that a trader passes on tax and that credit-note assertions may require verification. Taxes paid pursuant to a valid self-assessment were not characterized as a mere deposit. Minor inconsistencies in prior orders were found immaterial. Appeal disposed of.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.