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" ?
Extended limitation for recovery of alleged inadmissible CENVAT credit was rejected because the assessee had disclosed total credit in statutory returns and was not legally required to furnish invoice-wise particulars; with documents already filed with a refund claim, suppression was not established, so demand beyond the normal period was set aside, while demand within limitation for Apr-Sep 2011 survived. Credit on outdoor catering for Apr-Sep 2011 was disallowed due to post-1-4-2011 statutory exclusion of such services as employee personal consumption. Credit was also disallowed where invoices lacked mandatory service description under Rule 9(2), and for accommodation and gym equipment AMC as excluded personal-use services. Alleged double-demand required factual verification and was remanded; Section 78 penalty was set aside. - CESTAT
Extended limitation for recovery of alleged inadmissible CENVAT credit was rejected because the assessee had disclosed total credit in statutory returns and was not legally required to furnish invoice-wise particulars; with documents already filed with a refund claim, suppression was not established, so demand beyond the normal period was set aside, while demand within limitation for Apr-Sep 2011 survived. Credit on outdoor catering for Apr-Sep 2011 was disallowed due to post-1-4-2011 statutory exclusion of such services as employee personal consumption. Credit was also disallowed where invoices lacked mandatory service description under Rule 9(2), and for accommodation and gym equipment AMC as excluded personal-use services. Alleged double-demand required factual verification and was remanded; Section 78 penalty was set aside. - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
