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" ?
A composite lease of tea estates was held to be an agricultural arrangement, not taxable renting of immovable property, because it was directed to plantation operations such as cultivation, harvesting and processing of green tea leaves, with consideration linked to agricultural output. The Tribunal held that land, labour quarters, staff facilities and machinery integral to plantation activity could not be artificially split into separate taxable services, and the demands for manpower supply and supply of tangible goods also failed because there was no independent consideration, possession, or effective control by the recipient. The impugned orders were set aside, and limitation, interest and penalties did not survive.
A composite lease of tea estates was held to be an agricultural arrangement, not taxable renting of immovable property, because it was directed to plantation operations such as cultivation, harvesting and processing of green tea leaves, with consideration linked to agricultural output. The Tribunal held that land, labour quarters, staff facilities and machinery integral to plantation activity could not be artificially split into separate taxable services, and the demands for manpower supply and supply of tangible goods also failed because there was no independent consideration, possession, or effective control by the recipient. The impugned orders were set aside, and limitation, interest and penalties did not survive.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.