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...
TNMM functional comparability requires excluding rice manufacturers from a pure Basmati rice trader's benchmark and recognising operating export recei...
Working-capital adjustment subsumes delayed-receivable effects in TNMM benchmarking of captive software-development services, avoiding separate notion...
Transfer-pricing comparability requires exclusion of financially illogical super-profit comparables and correction of unsupported annual-report and ma...
Charitable character assessment preserves Section 80G approval despite inclusive spiritual teachings and incidental religious expenditure within the s...
Penalty proceedings for cash-loan acceptance require assessment proceedings and recorded Assessing Officer satisfaction; absent these, the proceedings...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96556 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.