Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
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...
Sections 92A(1) and 92A(2) require a harmonious reading: the statutory circumstances in section 92A(2), including business dependence under section 92A(2)(g), do not independently establish an associated-enterprise relationship without participation in management, control or capital under section 92A(1). Commercial dependence or distribution exclusivity alone is insufficient absent evidence of ownership, voting rights, managerial participation or financial control. For internal CUP analysis, contractual differences do not disqualify an uncontrolled transaction unless they materially affect the royalty rate and cannot be eliminated through reasonably accurate, objectively verifiable adjustments. Royalty benchmarking was remanded to examine those differences and adjustments; if CUP is unreliable, the most appropriate method must be independently selected.
Sections 92A(1) and 92A(2) require a harmonious reading: the statutory circumstances in section 92A(2), including business dependence under section 92A(2)(g), do not independently establish an associated-enterprise relationship without participation in management, control or capital under section 92A(1). Commercial dependence or distribution exclusivity alone is insufficient absent evidence of ownership, voting rights, managerial participation or financial control. For internal CUP analysis, contractual differences do not disqualify an uncontrolled transaction unless they materially affect the royalty rate and cannot be eliminated through reasonably accurate, objectively verifiable adjustments. Royalty benchmarking was remanded to examine those differences and adjustments; if CUP is unreliable, the most appropriate method must be independently selected.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4813 
Join Channel 
