Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
The case involved the interpretation of Article 366 (29A) of the Constitution regarding the transfer of right of use goods. The High Court examined whether contracts for hiring launch vehicles for a bridge project constituted a sale or a service under Section 65 (105) (zzzzj) of the Finance Act, 1994. The court held that the contracts were service contracts as the essential elements of a sale were absent. The court emphasized that the control over the vessels remained with the petitioners, making it a service contract. Citing the case of M/s K. P. Mozika, the court concluded that there was no transfer of right of use, and the contracts fell within the ambit of service contracts. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the respondents were directed to process the application for refund. The writ petition was allowed.
The case involved the interpretation of Article 366 (29A) of the Constitution regarding the transfer of right of use goods. The High Court examined whether contracts for hiring launch vehicles for a bridge project constituted a sale or a service under Section 65 (105) (zzzzj) of the Finance Act, 1994. The court held that the contracts were service contracts as the essential elements of a sale were absent. The court emphasized that the control over the vessels remained with the petitioners, making it a service contract. Citing the case of M/s K. P. Mozika, the court concluded that there was no transfer of right of use, and the contracts fell within the ambit of service contracts. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the respondents were directed to process the application for refund. The writ petition was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
