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" ?
The CESTAT allowed the appeal filed by M/s X against the Revenue, holding that a Single Member Bench had jurisdiction under Section 129C(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 to decide a dispute confined solely to interest on refund of a revenue deposit, as interest is distinct from duty, fine or penalty and is not within the excluded categories. The Tribunal held that the assessee is legally entitled to interest on the refunded deposit of Rs. 5 crores, applying the doctrine of compensation for wrongful retention of money. It directed the Department to pay interest at 12% per annum from the date of deposit during investigation until the date of actual refund. The appeal was accordingly allowed, with the assessee's separate interest claim application held maintainable.
The CESTAT allowed the appeal filed by M/s X against the Revenue, holding that a Single Member Bench had jurisdiction under Section 129C(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 to decide a dispute confined solely to interest on refund of a revenue deposit, as interest is distinct from duty, fine or penalty and is not within the excluded categories. The Tribunal held that the assessee is legally entitled to interest on the refunded deposit of Rs. 5 crores, applying the doctrine of compensation for wrongful retention of money. It directed the Department to pay interest at 12% per annum from the date of deposit during investigation until the date of actual refund. The appeal was accordingly allowed, with the assessee's separate interest claim application held maintainable.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
