Defined public benefit can retain charitable character; registration renewal requires examining genuine activities and legal compliance, not surplus a...
Capital reduction is distinct from share buy-back, preventing buy-back tax; restructuring interest and related business deductions also survive scruti...
Transfer pricing and tax deductions upheld on established principles, while employee contributions and warranty provisions returned for fresh examinat...
Captive transfer pricing relies on industrial consumer tariffs, while genuine quotations can benchmark effluent treatment transfers under the Other Me...
Specific tariff classification for ophthalmic instruments and extended limitation principles determine the treatment of duty demands, confiscation, an...
Page of 4801
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1161 to 1180 of 96001 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The High Court addressed the issue of invoking the extended period of limitation for non-payment of service tax. The Court held that the Tribunal's finding of no documentary evidence indicating the service rendered was erroneous. It emphasized that two units of a company cannot be treated as separate entities for service tax purposes. The Court cited legal precedent to support that a company is a single entity under the law, and divisions/branches cannot be considered distinct legal entities. The Court also noted that the Tribunal's decision contradicted established legal principles regarding service tax credit and the relationship between units of the same company. Ultimately, the Department's appeal was rejected, and the Tribunal's order was deemed unsustainable and contrary to the law. The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed.
The High Court addressed the issue of invoking the extended period of limitation for non-payment of service tax. The Court held that the Tribunal's finding of no documentary evidence indicating the service rendered was erroneous. It emphasized that two units of a company cannot be treated as separate entities for service tax purposes. The Court cited legal precedent to support that a company is a single entity under the law, and divisions/branches cannot be considered distinct legal entities. The Court also noted that the Tribunal's decision contradicted established legal principles regarding service tax credit and the relationship between units of the same company. Ultimately, the Department's appeal was rejected, and the Tribunal's order was deemed unsustainable and contrary to the law. The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
