Charitable trust income application permits verified capital expenditure but rejects deferred pre-operative claims and requires reconsideration of con...
Reinsurance premium deductions require established regulatory breaches, while independently acquired software qualifies within the computer depreciati...
Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Remuneration paid to whole-time directors was treated as outside the service tax net because the employment agreements, express employer-employee clauses, TDS under section 192, and Form 16 supported an employee relationship; variable or profit-linked pay did not change that character, so the demand, interest and penalties on that remuneration failed. Remuneration paid to non-whole-time directors was also not taxable on the facts shown, because the appellant had produced ST-3 returns indicating tax was discharged by its Bhubaneswar office, the Revenue did not rebut that evidence, and no centralized registration existed to justify a demand from the Salem office. Derivative demands based on an earlier set-aside notice, without independent evidence, could not survive, so the common orders were set aside in entirety.
Remuneration paid to whole-time directors was treated as outside the service tax net because the employment agreements, express employer-employee clauses, TDS under section 192, and Form 16 supported an employee relationship; variable or profit-linked pay did not change that character, so the demand, interest and penalties on that remuneration failed. Remuneration paid to non-whole-time directors was also not taxable on the facts shown, because the appellant had produced ST-3 returns indicating tax was discharged by its Bhubaneswar office, the Revenue did not rebut that evidence, and no centralized registration existed to justify a demand from the Salem office. Derivative demands based on an earlier set-aside notice, without independent evidence, could not survive, so the common orders were set aside in entirety.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
