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 allowed the appeal, holding that the appellant is lawfully entitled to interest on amounts deposited during investigation and as mandatory pre-deposit from the date of each deposit until the date of refund. The Tribunal distinguished such deposits from "duty" or "tax" governed by Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, reiterating that they are mere deposits on which the department has no beneficial interest unless duly appropriated. As the interest was correctly computed from the date of deposit, it did not constitute an erroneous payment, and consequently no recovery or penalty proceedings were sustainable against the appellant.
CESTAT allowed the appeal, holding that the appellant is lawfully entitled to interest on amounts deposited during investigation and as mandatory pre-deposit from the date of each deposit until the date of refund. The Tribunal distinguished such deposits from "duty" or "tax" governed by Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, reiterating that they are mere deposits on which the department has no beneficial interest unless duly appropriated. As the interest was correctly computed from the date of deposit, it did not constitute an erroneous payment, and consequently no recovery or penalty proceedings were sustainable against the appellant.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.