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 allowed the appeal, setting aside the Commissioner's order demanding interest and imposing penalty. It held that interest under s.11AA of the Central Excise Act r/w r.14 of the 2004 Credit Rules was unsustainable since the SCN neither specified when duty became due nor when the CENVAT credit was reversed, nor alleged any violation of r.6 of the 2004 Credit Rules. As the appellant had already reversed CENVAT credit attributable to electricity sold to the State Electricity Board, this reversal was treated as non-availment of credit, eliminating any duty liability under s.11A. Consequently, preconditions for penalty under r.15(1) of the 2004 Credit Rules were not met, and the penalty, including on the basis of alleged suppression, was quashed.
CESTAT allowed the appeal, setting aside the Commissioner's order demanding interest and imposing penalty. It held that interest under s.11AA of the Central Excise Act r/w r.14 of the 2004 Credit Rules was unsustainable since the SCN neither specified when duty became due nor when the CENVAT credit was reversed, nor alleged any violation of r.6 of the 2004 Credit Rules. As the appellant had already reversed CENVAT credit attributable to electricity sold to the State Electricity Board, this reversal was treated as non-availment of credit, eliminating any duty liability under s.11A. Consequently, preconditions for penalty under r.15(1) of the 2004 Credit Rules were not met, and the penalty, including on the basis of alleged suppression, was quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.