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" ?
The Tribunal held that the amount collected under Interest Free Maintenance Security and Annual Maintenance Charges was refundable and not for providing services, hence not liable to service tax. It ruled that no service tax demand could be raised on the appellant as the department had already demanded tax from the service provider. The extended period of limitation was set aside due to lack of positive evidence of suppression or willful misstatement by the appellant, considering the nascent stage of service tax law at the relevant time. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside and the appeal allowed.
The Tribunal held that the amount collected under Interest Free Maintenance Security and Annual Maintenance Charges was refundable and not for providing services, hence not liable to service tax. It ruled that no service tax demand could be raised on the appellant as the department had already demanded tax from the service provider. The extended period of limitation was set aside due to lack of positive evidence of suppression or willful misstatement by the appellant, considering the nascent stage of service tax law at the relevant time. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside and the appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.