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 held that supplies of excisable goods from DTA to SEZ units are exempt from central excise duty by virtue of Section 26 of the SEZ Act, 2005, which overrides inconsistent provisions of other laws through Section 51. The Tribunal ruled that exemption granted under SEZ law cannot be curtailed by procedural conditions or requirements prescribed in central excise notifications or circulars, including non-compliance with forms or procedures under such instruments. Consequently, the confirmation of duty demands under Section 11A of the CEA by invoking the extended period, and the imposition of penalty under Section 11AC, were found unsustainable in law. The impugned order was set aside and the appeal of M/s X allowed.
CESTAT held that supplies of excisable goods from DTA to SEZ units are exempt from central excise duty by virtue of Section 26 of the SEZ Act, 2005, which overrides inconsistent provisions of other laws through Section 51. The Tribunal ruled that exemption granted under SEZ law cannot be curtailed by procedural conditions or requirements prescribed in central excise notifications or circulars, including non-compliance with forms or procedures under such instruments. Consequently, the confirmation of duty demands under Section 11A of the CEA by invoking the extended period, and the imposition of penalty under Section 11AC, were found unsustainable in law. The impugned order was set aside and the appeal of M/s X allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.