Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
Page of 4786
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
461 to 480 of 95715 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CESTAT, an Appellate Tribunal, addressed the valuation of services in a case involving transport/insurance charges received by the Appellant for the erection and installation of transmission towers. The Tribunal held that the separate consideration for installation and transportation/insurance charges indicated distinct and independent activities under the service contract. Referring to a precedent, it emphasized that services should not be classified as a single composite service if they are distinct and independent. The Tribunal also rejected the extended period of limitation, noting that the allegation of suppression of facts was incorrect. Consequently, the demand for service tax was deemed legally unsustainable, and the impugned order was set aside, allowing the appeal.
CESTAT, an Appellate Tribunal, addressed the valuation of services in a case involving transport/insurance charges received by the Appellant for the erection and installation of transmission towers. The Tribunal held that the separate consideration for installation and transportation/insurance charges indicated distinct and independent activities under the service contract. Referring to a precedent, it emphasized that services should not be classified as a single composite service if they are distinct and independent. The Tribunal also rejected the extended period of limitation, noting that the allegation of suppression of facts was incorrect. Consequently, the demand for service tax was deemed legally unsustainable, and the impugned order was set aside, allowing the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
