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" ?
Once a service is subjected to service tax, the same service cannot be taxed again, as it would amount to double taxation, which is impermissible. In this case, even though the appellant was liable to pay service tax under the reverse charge mechanism, the service provider had already discharged the service tax liability. The revenue authorities accepted this payment and dropped proceedings against the appellant. The Tribunal, relying on previous decisions, held that when a service provider pays service tax for services where the recipient is liable, demanding the same tax from the recipient is unsustainable. Since the transport agency had paid service tax, the appellant is eligible for CENVAT credit on that amount. Consequently, the demand against the appellant was set aside as untenable.
Once a service is subjected to service tax, the same service cannot be taxed again, as it would amount to double taxation, which is impermissible. In this case, even though the appellant was liable to pay service tax under the reverse charge mechanism, the service provider had already discharged the service tax liability. The revenue authorities accepted this payment and dropped proceedings against the appellant. The Tribunal, relying on previous decisions, held that when a service provider pays service tax for services where the recipient is liable, demanding the same tax from the recipient is unsustainable. Since the transport agency had paid service tax, the appellant is eligible for CENVAT credit on that amount. Consequently, the demand against the appellant was set aside as untenable.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.