Employee stock-shortage penalties do not constitute consideration for services, preventing GST collection under Schedule II in employment relationship...
Transfer-pricing treatment of ITeS margins excludes pass-through tax recoveries and separate delayed-receivables interest after working-capital adjust...
Capacity-utilisation adjustments under TNMM can neutralise substantiated COVID-related idle costs where underutilisation materially affects profitabil...
Page of 4830
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
181 to 200 of 96587 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Levy of penalty u/s 78 of FA - Non-payment of Service Tax - Cargo Handling Services or mining services - the Supreme Court held that the activity would appropriately be classified under the head “transport of goods by road service” and the activity does not involve any service in relation to “mining of mineral” as contemplated under section 65(105) (zzzy) of the Finance Act. The Supreme Court also held that the definition of “mines” has no apparent nexus with the activity undertaken under the service rendered - the Supreme Court categorically held that the activity undertaken by the appellant would fall under the head ‘transportation of goods by road service’. The Commissioner (Appeals) was, therefore, not justified in holding that the appellant had undertaken the activity of mining service w.e.f. 01.06.2007. - AT
Levy of penalty u/s 78 of FA - Non-payment of Service Tax - Cargo Handling Services or mining services - the Supreme Court held that the activity would appropriately be classified under the head “transport of goods by road service” and the activity does not involve any service in relation to “mining of mineral” as contemplated under section 65(105) (zzzy) of the Finance Act. The Supreme Court also held that the definition of “mines” has no apparent nexus with the activity undertaken under the service rendered - the Supreme Court categorically held that the activity undertaken by the appellant would fall under the head ‘transportation of goods by road service’. The Commissioner (Appeals) was, therefore, not justified in holding that the appellant had undertaken the activity of mining service w.e.f. 01.06.2007. - AT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.