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...
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 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
