Income-tax prosecution fails when appellate remand removes its factual foundation; directors require company arraignment for vicarious criminal liabil...
Capital character of assignment consideration prevents taxation as residuary income, while unsupported interest-related expenditure remains non-deduct...
Make-available condition shields regional support-service receipts from Indian taxation where no independent capability or permanent establishment exi...
Transfer-pricing treatment of corporate guarantees and convertible loans followed prior-year consistency, with taxable foreign dividends excluded from...
Transfer-pricing benchmarking confines adjustments to associated-enterprise transactions and integrates delayed receivables through TNMM working-capit...
Medical relief status protects government-contracted mobile healthcare from commercial classification, while provisional registration cancellation req...
Charitable registration cancellation requires proof that educational activities abandoned their objects; incidental receipts and retained surplus are ...
Refund of services tax - input services received by the unit of the appellant established in SEZ - refund rejected for alleged non-compliance of several conditions - The substantive benefit of service tax exemption provided under section 26 of the SEZ Act read with rule 31 of the SEZ Rules cannot be denied on procedural grounds. It is not in dispute that the appellant was not required to deposit service tax under the notification dated May 20, 2009, but service tax was deposited. It cannot be urged that the appellant is not entitled to claim refund because of a mistake in depositing service tax even if it was not required to be deposited. - AT
Refund of services tax - input services received by the unit of the appellant established in SEZ - refund rejected for alleged non-compliance of several conditions - The substantive benefit of service tax exemption provided under section 26 of the SEZ Act read with rule 31 of the SEZ Rules cannot be denied on procedural grounds. It is not in dispute that the appellant was not required to deposit service tax under the notification dated May 20, 2009, but service tax was deposited. It cannot be urged that the appellant is not entitled to claim refund because of a mistake in depositing service tax even if it was not required to be deposited. - AT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4891 
