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 case involves a refund of service tax paid by the appellant for works contract services related to a drinking water supply pipeline project. The issue addressed was whether the activity qualifies as a taxable service under "Work Contract Service." The Tribunal held that the appellant is not liable for service tax as the project was for non-commercial, non-industrial purposes. The refund claims were contested u/s 11B of the Central Excise Act, but the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, stating the service tax was paid under a mistake of law. Additionally, the claim was not barred by unjust enrichment as the appellant bore the tax burden. The Tribunal directed the adjudicating authority to process the refund claim promptly.
The case involves a refund of service tax paid by the appellant for works contract services related to a drinking water supply pipeline project. The issue addressed was whether the activity qualifies as a taxable service under "Work Contract Service." The Tribunal held that the appellant is not liable for service tax as the project was for non-commercial, non-industrial purposes. The refund claims were contested u/s 11B of the Central Excise Act, but the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, stating the service tax was paid under a mistake of law. Additionally, the claim was not barred by unjust enrichment as the appellant bore the tax burden. The Tribunal directed the adjudicating authority to process the refund claim promptly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.