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...
Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
Export of service or not - Palace or provision of services - The case revolved around the Appellant's provision of sales promotion and marketing services to companies located outside India. The department contended that these services were taxable as they were provided and used in India. However, the Appellant argued that the services constituted exports, exempt from service tax, as they were provided to recipients outside India. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions and relevant legal provisions, ruled in favor of the Appellant. It concluded that the services fell under the category of export of service and were therefore not liable to service tax. Additionally, the Tribunal upheld the Appellant's entitlement to exemption under Notification No. 18/2009-ST and set aside the penalty imposed by the department.
Export of service or not - Palace or provision of services - The case revolved around the Appellant's provision of sales promotion and marketing services to companies located outside India. The department contended that these services were taxable as they were provided and used in India. However, the Appellant argued that the services constituted exports, exempt from service tax, as they were provided to recipients outside India. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions and relevant legal provisions, ruled in favor of the Appellant. It concluded that the services fell under the category of export of service and were therefore not liable to service tax. Additionally, the Tribunal upheld the Appellant's entitlement to exemption under Notification No. 18/2009-ST and set aside the penalty imposed by the department.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
