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...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
221 to 240 of 96092 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Reverse charge on royalty for mining rights was held inapplicable where the appellants had not been shown to hold any mining licence or to have paid royalty as licence holders. The Tribunal accepted the explanation that the accounting entry described as royalty represented only the royalty portion withheld in works contract bills until proof of purchase from licensed vendors was furnished, and not consideration for assignment of any right to use natural resources; the service tax demand therefore failed on merits. It further held that the extended period could not be invoked on balance sheet entries alone, without corroborative evidence of suppression or taxable receipt, so the notices were also barred by limitation.
Reverse charge on royalty for mining rights was held inapplicable where the appellants had not been shown to hold any mining licence or to have paid royalty as licence holders. The Tribunal accepted the explanation that the accounting entry described as royalty represented only the royalty portion withheld in works contract bills until proof of purchase from licensed vendors was furnished, and not consideration for assignment of any right to use natural resources; the service tax demand therefore failed on merits. It further held that the extended period could not be invoked on balance sheet entries alone, without corroborative evidence of suppression or taxable receipt, so the notices were also barred by limitation.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.