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 appellant made payments of Net Present Value (NPV) to the Compensatory Afforestation Fund (CAMPA Fund) as a constitutional mandate under Article 48 of the Constitution of India, for the usage of forest land for non-forest purposes. The adjudicating authority considered the payment of NPV as consideration for a 'Declared Service' u/s 66E(e) of the Finance Act, 1944. However, the Tribunal held that the clearance granted for usage of forest land cannot be considered a 'Declared Service', and the NPV payment cannot be considered as consideration for such service. Therefore, the demand of service tax along with interest is not sustainable. Additionally, there was no suppression of facts by the appellant, and hence, the extended period cannot be invoked, and penalty u/s 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 is not imposable. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
The appellant made payments of Net Present Value (NPV) to the Compensatory Afforestation Fund (CAMPA Fund) as a constitutional mandate under Article 48 of the Constitution of India, for the usage of forest land for non-forest purposes. The adjudicating authority considered the payment of NPV as consideration for a 'Declared Service' u/s 66E(e) of the Finance Act, 1944. However, the Tribunal held that the clearance granted for usage of forest land cannot be considered a 'Declared Service', and the NPV payment cannot be considered as consideration for such service. Therefore, the demand of service tax along with interest is not sustainable. Additionally, there was no suppression of facts by the appellant, and hence, the extended period cannot be invoked, and penalty u/s 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 is not imposable. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
