Governmental authority status supports construction-service exemption, while pre-cutoff contract and stamp-duty compliance requires verification on re...
Automated Free Sale and Commerce Certificates enable paperless processing while retaining risk-based manual verification for selected exporter applica...
Employee stock-shortage penalties do not constitute consideration for services, preventing GST collection under Schedule II in employment relationship...
The case involved a dispute over the taxability of reimbursement of salary expenses of seconded employees as Fees for Technical Services (FTS) and levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) or 270A. The Appellate Tribunal found that the Assessee had a bonafide belief regarding the taxability of the receipts and eventually offered them for taxation. The Tribunal referred to a judgment stating that such reimbursements are not liable to tax deduction at source. The Assessee had disclosed the receipts in Form 3CB and provided explanations to lower authorities. The Tribunal held that there was no concealment of income and no penalty should be levied u/s 271(1)(c) or 270A. The penalty was deleted in favor of the Assessee.
The case involved a dispute over the taxability of reimbursement of salary expenses of seconded employees as Fees for Technical Services (FTS) and levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) or 270A. The Appellate Tribunal found that the Assessee had a bonafide belief regarding the taxability of the receipts and eventually offered them for taxation. The Tribunal referred to a judgment stating that such reimbursements are not liable to tax deduction at source. The Assessee had disclosed the receipts in Form 3CB and provided explanations to lower authorities. The Tribunal held that there was no concealment of income and no penalty should be levied u/s 271(1)(c) or 270A. The penalty was deleted in favor of the Assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
