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 4827
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
141 to 160 of 96536 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CESTAT (Appellate Tribunal) allowed the appeal by majority, holding the appellant entitled to refund of Swachh Bharat Cess and Krishi Kalyan Cess wrongly charged and paid to the service provider. The Tribunal found no allegation in the SCN, OIO or original proceedings that ST-3 returns were unrevised, hence that ground could not justify rejection at the Tribunal stage. Applying Point of Taxation Rule 6(a), advances and running-bill adjustments did not create an assessable service liability for fresh service and the SBC/KKC so collected is refundable to the person who bore the tax. Issues of Section 11B time-bar and unjust enrichment were not pleaded earlier and cannot be invoked; matter remitted to Division Bench for consequential orders.
CESTAT (Appellate Tribunal) allowed the appeal by majority, holding the appellant entitled to refund of Swachh Bharat Cess and Krishi Kalyan Cess wrongly charged and paid to the service provider. The Tribunal found no allegation in the SCN, OIO or original proceedings that ST-3 returns were unrevised, hence that ground could not justify rejection at the Tribunal stage. Applying Point of Taxation Rule 6(a), advances and running-bill adjustments did not create an assessable service liability for fresh service and the SBC/KKC so collected is refundable to the person who bore the tax. Issues of Section 11B time-bar and unjust enrichment were not pleaded earlier and cannot be invoked; matter remitted to Division Bench for consequential orders.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.