Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Page of 4824
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1661 to 1680 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" ?
Refund of service tax paid as sub-contractor - Rejection on the ground that Section 102 exempts services rendered to a Government, a local Authority or a Government Authority and does not exempt services rendered to a private company which in this case is M/s NBCC - The Tribunal interpreted Section 102 of the Finance Act, 1994, and held that the exemption applied to services provided to government entities, including educational institutions, regardless of whether the services were rendered directly or through subcontractors. The court emphasized that the nature of the service and the ultimate beneficiary, i.e., the government entity, determined the applicability of the exemption. - The CESTAT ruled in favor of the subcontractor, holding that they were entitled to the refund.
Refund of service tax paid as sub-contractor - Rejection on the ground that Section 102 exempts services rendered to a Government, a local Authority or a Government Authority and does not exempt services rendered to a private company which in this case is M/s NBCC - The Tribunal interpreted Section 102 of the Finance Act, 1994, and held that the exemption applied to services provided to government entities, including educational institutions, regardless of whether the services were rendered directly or through subcontractors. The court emphasized that the nature of the service and the ultimate beneficiary, i.e., the government entity, determined the applicability of the exemption. - The CESTAT ruled in favor of the subcontractor, holding that they were entitled to the refund.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4824 
Join Channel 
