Specified regulatory authority income receives conditional tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income character, and return f...
Tax exemption for regulatory authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-filing...
Input tax credit conditions remain constitutionally valid, with eligible recipient claims considered under GST circulars and retrospective filing dead...
Bogus donation receipts justified commission income assessment and defeated political-party tax exemption for inaccurate accounts and reporting failur...
Pure reimbursement without income element escapes tax withholding, while delayed withholding and unsupported provisions face deferred or renewed scrut...
Public benefit requirement defeats charitable registration where residents' association services are reciprocal, member-only facilities governed by mu...
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 
