Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires highway contract benchmarks to reflect operation, maintenance and transfer activities, requiring fresh be...
Objective characteristics govern magnesium bis-glycinate chelate classification as an amino-acid coordination compound, not a food preparation or anti...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
581 to 600 of 96046 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 involved a dispute over the classification of services as either Supply of Tangible Goods Service or not, regarding the activity of allowing clients to use railway rakes for goods transportation. It was held that the appellant lacked control over the rakes once handed to Indian Railways, making the service received by clients from Railways "Transportation of goods by Rail," not a supply of tangible goods service. The possession and control of the rakes by Indian Railways, not the appellant, precluded the activity from being taxable. The dispute period from 2008-09 to 2009-10 was deemed time-barred, with no fresh material supporting tax evasion. The demands were set aside on both merit and limitation grounds, and the appeal was allowed by CESTAT.
The case involved a dispute over the classification of services as either Supply of Tangible Goods Service or not, regarding the activity of allowing clients to use railway rakes for goods transportation. It was held that the appellant lacked control over the rakes once handed to Indian Railways, making the service received by clients from Railways "Transportation of goods by Rail," not a supply of tangible goods service. The possession and control of the rakes by Indian Railways, not the appellant, precluded the activity from being taxable. The dispute period from 2008-09 to 2009-10 was deemed time-barred, with no fresh material supporting tax evasion. The demands were set aside on both merit and limitation grounds, and the appeal was allowed by CESTAT.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
