Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
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 
