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" ?
Refund of customs duty deposited during investigation was denied on unjust enrichment on the ground that the amount was booked as expenditure in the profit and loss account. This was held to be an incorrect test; the determinative inquiry is whether the duty incidence was passed to customers through enhanced sale price. As the invoices reflected only material cost, labour charges and VAT, with no recovery of customs duty, and there was no evidence of post-duty price increase, the burden was held not to have been passed on, making unjust enrichment inapplicable. The impugned order was set aside and refund was allowed. - CESTAT
Refund of customs duty deposited during investigation was denied on unjust enrichment on the ground that the amount was booked as expenditure in the profit and loss account. This was held to be an incorrect test; the determinative inquiry is whether the duty incidence was passed to customers through enhanced sale price. As the invoices reflected only material cost, labour charges and VAT, with no recovery of customs duty, and there was no evidence of post-duty price increase, the burden was held not to have been passed on, making unjust enrichment inapplicable. The impugned order was set aside and refund was allowed. - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.