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...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
181 to 200 of 96047 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
For the pre-14.05.2015 period, service tax valuation under Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994 was confined to the consideration charged for the taxable service and could not be expanded to losses or unrecovered expenditure. The Court noted that Rule 5(1) of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006 had already been held ultra vires Section 67, and that the amendment treating reimbursable expenditure as part of 'consideration' operated only prospectively from 14.05.2015. As the show cause notice covered an earlier period, the demand based on Rule 5(1) was untenable and was quashed as without jurisdiction.
For the pre-14.05.2015 period, service tax valuation under Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994 was confined to the consideration charged for the taxable service and could not be expanded to losses or unrecovered expenditure. The Court noted that Rule 5(1) of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006 had already been held ultra vires Section 67, and that the amendment treating reimbursable expenditure as part of 'consideration' operated only prospectively from 14.05.2015. As the show cause notice covered an earlier period, the demand based on Rule 5(1) was untenable and was quashed as without jurisdiction.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
