Employee stock-shortage penalties do not constitute consideration for services, preventing GST collection under Schedule II in employment relationship...
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...
Page of 4830
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
181 to 200 of 96587 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The Appellate Tribunal addressed the issues of service classification, service tax liability, and extended limitation period. The appellants' services did not fall under Business Auxiliary Service (BAS) due to lack of involvement of three parties. The commission, incentives, etc., were not taxable under BAS. The collection for Visa/Passport processing charges was not clarified as a taxable service. Charges retained by the appellants as ORC/RAF were not taxable under BAS. The trade margin earned on ticket sales was not taxable. The failure to deposit service tax collected from sub-agents was not proven. The extended limitation period was not applicable due to proper disclosure. The tribunal set aside the service tax demand, ruling in favor of the appellants.
The Appellate Tribunal addressed the issues of service classification, service tax liability, and extended limitation period. The appellants' services did not fall under Business Auxiliary Service (BAS) due to lack of involvement of three parties. The commission, incentives, etc., were not taxable under BAS. The collection for Visa/Passport processing charges was not clarified as a taxable service. Charges retained by the appellants as ORC/RAF were not taxable under BAS. The trade margin earned on ticket sales was not taxable. The failure to deposit service tax collected from sub-agents was not proven. The extended limitation period was not applicable due to proper disclosure. The tribunal set aside the service tax demand, ruling in favor of the appellants.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.