Defined public benefit can retain charitable character; registration renewal requires examining genuine activities and legal compliance, not surplus a...
Capital reduction is distinct from share buy-back, preventing buy-back tax; restructuring interest and related business deductions also survive scruti...
Transfer pricing and tax deductions upheld on established principles, while employee contributions and warranty provisions returned for fresh examinat...
Captive transfer pricing relies on industrial consumer tariffs, while genuine quotations can benchmark effluent treatment transfers under the Other Me...
Specific tariff classification for ophthalmic instruments and extended limitation principles determine the treatment of duty demands, confiscation, an...
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 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
