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 dominant issue was whether the extended period of limitation was validly invoked for denying exemption, ordering confiscation, and imposing penalties in relation to imported fabrics. Applying the binding Division Bench decision, the Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to satisfy the Supreme Court tests for invoking the extended limitation period, and therefore the impugned adjudication order could not be sustained; the appeals were allowed on limitation. Having decided limitation in favour of the appellant, the Tribunal held it lacked jurisdiction to examine the merits of classification, exemption denial, confiscation, or penalties; consequentially, those demands and actions did not survive. - CESTAT
The dominant issue was whether the extended period of limitation was validly invoked for denying exemption, ordering confiscation, and imposing penalties in relation to imported fabrics. Applying the binding Division Bench decision, the Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to satisfy the Supreme Court tests for invoking the extended limitation period, and therefore the impugned adjudication order could not be sustained; the appeals were allowed on limitation. Having decided limitation in favour of the appellant, the Tribunal held it lacked jurisdiction to examine the merits of classification, exemption denial, confiscation, or penalties; consequentially, those demands and actions did not survive. - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.