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...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
Threshold exemption excludes exempt services, while stamp-paper purchases avoid reverse charge; consequential service tax penalties were also set asid...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1381 to 1400 of 96174 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 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
