Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
Threshold exemption excludes exempt services, while stamp-paper purchases avoid reverse charge; consequential service tax penalties were also set asid...
Page of 4790
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1001 to 1020 of 95794 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Marketing and administrative support services rendered to an overseas entity were treated as export of services because the recipient was outside India, payment was received in convertible foreign exchange, and the arrangement was on a principal-to-principal basis; the place where work was performed in India was not determinative, so the service tax demand, interest and penalty were set aside. CENVAT credit denial for want of supporting documents also failed because the credit was disclosed in ST-3 returns and supporting invoices were produced during audit and refund proceedings, so the denial with interest and penalty was set aside. The extended period was unavailable in the absence of suppression, and the penalty for delayed registration survived only to the statutory ceiling.
Marketing and administrative support services rendered to an overseas entity were treated as export of services because the recipient was outside India, payment was received in convertible foreign exchange, and the arrangement was on a principal-to-principal basis; the place where work was performed in India was not determinative, so the service tax demand, interest and penalty were set aside. CENVAT credit denial for want of supporting documents also failed because the credit was disclosed in ST-3 returns and supporting invoices were produced during audit and refund proceedings, so the denial with interest and penalty was set aside. The extended period was unavailable in the absence of suppression, and the penalty for delayed registration survived only to the statutory ceiling.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.