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...
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...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
STGU: Appellants supplied generating sets/equipment on rental or...
Clients had effective control over rented equipment. Appellants paid taxes. Not a 'Supply of Tangible Goods for Use' service. Service tax demands unsustainable.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
STGU: Appellants supplied generating sets/equipment on rental or lease basis to clients for specified periods. Clients used equipment at their premises, obtained licenses, procured fuel, and controlled operations. Agreements showed clients had possession and effective control without interference from appellants. Appellants paid applicable VAT/Sales Tax. CESTAT held appellants' activities did not constitute 'Supply of Tangible Goods for Use' service u/s 65(105)(zzzzj) before 01.07.2012 or declared service u/s 66E after 01.07.2012 to attract service tax liability. Demands of service tax, interest, and penalties were unsustainable. Appeal allowed.
STGU: Appellants supplied generating sets/equipment on rental or lease basis to clients for specified periods. Clients used equipment at their premises, obtained licenses, procured fuel, and controlled operations. Agreements showed clients had possession and effective control without interference from appellants. Appellants paid applicable VAT/Sales Tax. CESTAT held appellants' activities did not constitute 'Supply of Tangible Goods for Use' service u/s 65(105)(zzzzj) before 01.07.2012 or declared service u/s 66E after 01.07.2012 to attract service tax liability. Demands of service tax, interest, and penalties were unsustainable. Appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.