Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
301 to 320 of 96174 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The AAAR held that the appellant's sales, marketing and HR consulting services were intermediary services under Section 2(13), because the agreement involved three parties and the appellant was facilitating supply by the foreign entity to the Indian client. As intermediary services, the place of supply was in India, so the services were taxable at 18% IGST and did not qualify as export of services or zero-rated supply. On that basis, the claim for refund of unutilized input tax credit failed because the statutory foundation for refund was absent. The advance ruling was upheld and the appeal dismissed.
The AAAR held that the appellant's sales, marketing and HR consulting services were intermediary services under Section 2(13), because the agreement involved three parties and the appellant was facilitating supply by the foreign entity to the Indian client. As intermediary services, the place of supply was in India, so the services were taxable at 18% IGST and did not qualify as export of services or zero-rated supply. On that basis, the claim for refund of unutilized input tax credit failed because the statutory foundation for refund was absent. The advance ruling was upheld and the appeal dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.