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...
Functional comparability governs software-service benchmarking: dissimilar companies are excluded, while related-party filters, margins and working-ca...
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.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4830 
Join Channel 
