Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
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...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
181 to 200 of 96047 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CENVAT Credit - The Department contended that since exemption was available under Notification No.17/2009 for these services, the appellant should have opted for the exemption route instead of claiming Cenvat credit. Additionally, the Department argued that the services were utilized after the "place of removal," making them ineligible for Cenvat credit under the amended Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. - However, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant had the discretion to choose between exemption and Cenvat credit under Notification No.17/2009. Moreover, the Tribunal determined that the services utilized by the appellant at the port fell within the definition of "place of removal," making them eligible for Cenvat credit. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue.
CENVAT Credit - The Department contended that since exemption was available under Notification No.17/2009 for these services, the appellant should have opted for the exemption route instead of claiming Cenvat credit. Additionally, the Department argued that the services were utilized after the "place of removal," making them ineligible for Cenvat credit under the amended Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. - However, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant had the discretion to choose between exemption and Cenvat credit under Notification No.17/2009. Moreover, the Tribunal determined that the services utilized by the appellant at the port fell within the definition of "place of removal," making them eligible for Cenvat credit. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
