Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
321 to 340 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.