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" ?
CESTAT held that para 3.16.2 of the Foreign Trade Policy bars SHIS only where the status holder has availed TUFS for exports made in the same year. The appellant had not claimed SHIS on the basis of its own exports; it was only a transferee holder of SHIS scrips originally issued to others, and it used those scrips later for duty payment on imported capital goods. The Tribunal also held that Notification No. 104/2009-Cus permitted drawback or Cenvat credit of additional duty debited in the scrip, and no bar applied to a transferee holder. The demand of wrongly availed Cenvat credit, interest and penalty was set aside.
CESTAT held that para 3.16.2 of the Foreign Trade Policy bars SHIS only where the status holder has availed TUFS for exports made in the same year. The appellant had not claimed SHIS on the basis of its own exports; it was only a transferee holder of SHIS scrips originally issued to others, and it used those scrips later for duty payment on imported capital goods. The Tribunal also held that Notification No. 104/2009-Cus permitted drawback or Cenvat credit of additional duty debited in the scrip, and no bar applied to a transferee holder. The demand of wrongly availed Cenvat credit, interest and penalty was set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.