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 central issue is whether the bar of unjust enrichment under show cause proceedings prevents refund of duty on cash and quantity discounts; the tribunal's earlier orders became final and therefore bar recovery, entitling the taxpayer to refund. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in rejecting chartered accountant certificates and dealer affidavits showing duty incidence was not passed on; absence of contrary evidence meant those certificates were admissible and probative, so refunds must be allowed. Consequently, amounts challenged as erroneously refunded cannot be recovered where final tribunal decisions and acceptable evidence establish no unjust enrichment.
The central issue is whether the bar of unjust enrichment under show cause proceedings prevents refund of duty on cash and quantity discounts; the tribunal's earlier orders became final and therefore bar recovery, entitling the taxpayer to refund. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in rejecting chartered accountant certificates and dealer affidavits showing duty incidence was not passed on; absence of contrary evidence meant those certificates were admissible and probative, so refunds must be allowed. Consequently, amounts challenged as erroneously refunded cannot be recovered where final tribunal decisions and acceptable evidence establish no unjust enrichment.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.