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 held that the show-cause notice invoking the extended limitation under s.28, Customs Act, 1962, was time-barred and declined to adjudicate the merits. The tribunal noted departmental ambiguity on tariff classification of TV tuners during the relevant period and that the impugned order itself adopted a different CTH than initially assessed. Applying the principle that a time-barred demand precludes merit adjudication, as affirmed by higher courts, CESTAT set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, thereby quashing the demand insofar as it was raised beyond the statutory period against the Appellant and dismissing the Revenue's extended limitation plea.
CESTAT held that the show-cause notice invoking the extended limitation under s.28, Customs Act, 1962, was time-barred and declined to adjudicate the merits. The tribunal noted departmental ambiguity on tariff classification of TV tuners during the relevant period and that the impugned order itself adopted a different CTH than initially assessed. Applying the principle that a time-barred demand precludes merit adjudication, as affirmed by higher courts, CESTAT set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, thereby quashing the demand insofar as it was raised beyond the statutory period against the Appellant and dismissing the Revenue's extended limitation plea.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.