Pre-amendment reassessment limitation bars late notices under the preserved regime, invalidating consequential reassessment for affected earlier asses...
Cash-sales explanations for bank deposits require documentary reconciliation; reassessment notice survived where effective response time was available...
Functional comparability in transfer pricing prevents ad hoc arm's length adjustments where functions, assets, risks and reliable comparables are unes...
Contingency expenses, exempt-income disallowance, and royalty benchmarking: unsupported adjustments were deleted under consistent accounting and trans...
Page of 4921
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
81 to 100 of 98414 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The definition of residential complex excludes from service tax levy, a complex constructed by directly engaging a person for design and planning, where the construction is intended for personal use as residence. Relying on Khurana Engineering, where services provided to the Government for residential complex were treated as for 'personal use', the Tribunal held that the construction services provided by the respondents to GSPHCL, SMC, and SUDA, being Government bodies, were for non-commercial purpose and outside service tax purview. The services were treated as provided to the Government, and the end-use of the residential complex by the Government was covered under the definition of 'personal use' in the residential complex service, hence not leviable to service tax. The department's appeals were dismissed as lacking merit.
The definition of residential complex excludes from service tax levy, a complex constructed by directly engaging a person for design and planning, where the construction is intended for personal use as residence. Relying on Khurana Engineering, where services provided to the Government for residential complex were treated as for 'personal use', the Tribunal held that the construction services provided by the respondents to GSPHCL, SMC, and SUDA, being Government bodies, were for non-commercial purpose and outside service tax purview. The services were treated as provided to the Government, and the end-use of the residential complex by the Government was covered under the definition of 'personal use' in the residential complex service, hence not leviable to service tax. The department's appeals were dismissed as lacking merit.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4921 
