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...
The case before CESTAT Chandigarh involved the levy of service tax on "liquidated damages in contracts" for penalty/late delivery charges, under section 66E (e) of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant, a Central Government Public Sector Undertaking, challenged the tax liability. The Tribunal referred to a recent circular by the Department of Revenue stating no liability for service tax/GST on such damages. Previous Tribunal decisions supported the appellant's position that these damages are not subject to service tax. CESTAT held the impugned order as legally unsustainable and allowed the appeal, providing consequential relief as per law.
The case before CESTAT Chandigarh involved the levy of service tax on "liquidated damages in contracts" for penalty/late delivery charges, under section 66E (e) of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant, a Central Government Public Sector Undertaking, challenged the tax liability. The Tribunal referred to a recent circular by the Department of Revenue stating no liability for service tax/GST on such damages. Previous Tribunal decisions supported the appellant's position that these damages are not subject to service tax. CESTAT held the impugned order as legally unsustainable and allowed the appeal, providing consequential relief as per law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
