Composite inpatient healthcare supply may retain exemption despite MRP medicine billing, while separate taxable sale characterisation remains disputed...
Working-capital adjustment determines whether software-services transfer-pricing margins fall within the statutory tolerance range, eliminating any ad...
Permanent establishment deductions upheld for expatriate salaries, direct costs and trading losses, while head-office costs require fresh classificati...
Data transmission equipment classification under CTSH 8517 62 remains distinct from residual classification, with exemption evidence requiring scrutin...
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 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
