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" ?
Key aspects of the telecommunication service provided by the appellants and the related service tax implications. It discusses whether the services were provided with or without consideration, the applicability of the exemption under Explanation 3 to Rule 6(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules (CCR), the point of taxation, the disallowance of Cenvat credit on inputs and capital goods u/r 6(3)(i) of the CCR, the issue of time limitation and extended period of limitation u/s 73 of the Finance Act, 1994, and the demands for interest and penalty. The Tribunal's findings include that the telecommunication services involved consideration, the exemption under Explanation 3 was not applicable, the disallowance of Cenvat credit on capital goods was incorrect, the extended period of limitation was not justified, and consequently, the demands for service tax, interest, and penalty were set aside.
Key aspects of the telecommunication service provided by the appellants and the related service tax implications. It discusses whether the services were provided with or without consideration, the applicability of the exemption under Explanation 3 to Rule 6(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules (CCR), the point of taxation, the disallowance of Cenvat credit on inputs and capital goods u/r 6(3)(i) of the CCR, the issue of time limitation and extended period of limitation u/s 73 of the Finance Act, 1994, and the demands for interest and penalty. The Tribunal's findings include that the telecommunication services involved consideration, the exemption under Explanation 3 was not applicable, the disallowance of Cenvat credit on capital goods was incorrect, the extended period of limitation was not justified, and consequently, the demands for service tax, interest, and penalty were set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
