Donor-directed corpus contributions retain capital character despite exemption claims under section 10(23C)(vi), preventing their treatment as taxable...
Enhanced tax-audit threshold applies where banking records establish compliant non-cash receipts and payments, eliminating penalty exposure for audit ...
Transfer pricing consistency protects identical non-interest-bearing debenture terms from a later notional-interest adjustment without valid statutory...
Rectification of debatable deduction claims cannot reverse scrutiny-approved co-operative society interest income deductions as apparent record errors...
Cash-method accounting bars presumptive interest taxation, while unsupported securities and share-trading additions require reliable material and veri...
Section 7 admission requires established financial debt and default, not precise interest quantification, while post-suspension defaults remain action...
Page of 4811
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
141 to 160 of 96208 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Ayurvedic therapeutic treatment provided through a licensed hospital was held to fall outside the taxable category of Health and Fitness Services, because the records showed diagnosis, treatment and supervision by qualified medical practitioners using recognised Ayurvedic procedures, and the Revenue produced no contrary evidence. The pre-01.07.2012 demand was therefore unsustainable. For the post-01.07.2012 period, the Tribunal held that the appellant functioned as a clinical establishment rendering health care services in a recognised system of medicine, so the exemption under Notification No. 25/2012-ST applied. The post-01.07.2012 demands were accordingly not maintainable and the impugned orders were set aside.
Ayurvedic therapeutic treatment provided through a licensed hospital was held to fall outside the taxable category of Health and Fitness Services, because the records showed diagnosis, treatment and supervision by qualified medical practitioners using recognised Ayurvedic procedures, and the Revenue produced no contrary evidence. The pre-01.07.2012 demand was therefore unsustainable. For the post-01.07.2012 period, the Tribunal held that the appellant functioned as a clinical establishment rendering health care services in a recognised system of medicine, so the exemption under Notification No. 25/2012-ST applied. The post-01.07.2012 demands were accordingly not maintainable and the impugned orders were set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4811 
Join Channel 
