Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Demurrage charges and dispatch money under charter party arrangements were held not taxable as port services or declared service because the demands failed to identify the actual service provider and recipient, and the amounts were contractual adjustments linked to freight and delivery obligations rather than consideration for a separate service. The reverse charge demand on consulting engineering service also failed because the foreign contractor had an Indian establishment that was registered, discharged service tax on forward charge, and the appellant reimbursed that tax under the contract; section 66A could not be invoked to impose a second levy on the same transaction. The related penalties were set aside.
Demurrage charges and dispatch money under charter party arrangements were held not taxable as port services or declared service because the demands failed to identify the actual service provider and recipient, and the amounts were contractual adjustments linked to freight and delivery obligations rather than consideration for a separate service. The reverse charge demand on consulting engineering service also failed because the foreign contractor had an Indian establishment that was registered, discharged service tax on forward charge, and the appellant reimbursed that tax under the contract; section 66A could not be invoked to impose a second levy on the same transaction. The related penalties were set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
