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...
Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
Page of 4824
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
601 to 620 of 96463 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Comparable-service valuation under service-tax rules requires comparison between service recipients who stand on the same footing. Flats and a commercial unit allotted without monetary consideration to existing occupants under a redevelopment arrangement could not be valued by reference to sale prices of flats sold to new buyers, because the two recipient groups were not comparable. Since service tax had already been discharged on flats sold to new buyers, the demand based on an assumed value for allotments to existing occupants was unsustainable. The service-tax demand, consequential interest and penalty were set aside.
Comparable-service valuation under service-tax rules requires comparison between service recipients who stand on the same footing. Flats and a commercial unit allotted without monetary consideration to existing occupants under a redevelopment arrangement could not be valued by reference to sale prices of flats sold to new buyers, because the two recipient groups were not comparable. Since service tax had already been discharged on flats sold to new buyers, the demand based on an assumed value for allotments to existing occupants was unsustainable. The service-tax demand, consequential interest and penalty were set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.