Transfer-pricing treatment of ITeS margins excludes pass-through tax recoveries and separate delayed-receivables interest after working-capital adjust...
Capacity-utilisation adjustments under TNMM can neutralise substantiated COVID-related idle costs where underutilisation materially affects profitabil...
TNMM functional comparability requires excluding rice manufacturers from a pure Basmati rice trader's benchmark and recognising operating export recei...
Working-capital adjustment subsumes delayed-receivable effects in TNMM benchmarking of captive software-development services, avoiding separate notion...
Transfer-pricing comparability requires exclusion of financially illogical super-profit comparables and correction of unsupported annual-report and ma...
Charitable character assessment preserves Section 80G approval despite inclusive spiritual teachings and incidental religious expenditure within the s...
Penalty proceedings for cash-loan acceptance require assessment proceedings and recorded Assessing Officer satisfaction; absent these, the proceedings...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The case involves a dispute u/s refund of service tax paid...
Appeal allowed for refund of service tax paid erroneously. Export of services qualified as not exigible to service tax. Intermediary services not applicable.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
The case involves a dispute u/s refund of service tax paid erroneously and the classification of services provided by the appellant. The CESTAT held that a refund of service tax is maintainable even without challenging the assessment. The services provided to JDSU USA qualified as export of service, not subject to service tax. The appellant's services did not fall under the definition of an intermediary as per the applicable law during the disputed period. The impugned order was set aside as it incorrectly classified the services provided by the appellant. The appeal was allowed.
The case involves a dispute u/s refund of service tax paid erroneously and the classification of services provided by the appellant. The CESTAT held that a refund of service tax is maintainable even without challenging the assessment. The services provided to JDSU USA qualified as export of service, not subject to service tax. The appellant's services did not fall under the definition of an intermediary as per the applicable law during the disputed period. The impugned order was set aside as it incorrectly classified the services provided by the appellant. The appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.