Tax exemption for regulatory authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return filing...
Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
461 to 480 of 95833 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's activity of subscription and redemption of mutual fund units cannot be considered as trading of securities, thus not qualifying as an exempted service u/s 66D(e) of the Finance Act. Additionally, investment in mutual funds does not constitute a 'service' u/s 65B(44) of the Finance Act, as there is no service provider rendering a service to a recipient for consideration. Consequently, proportionate reversal of CENVAT credit availed on common input services was not required. The extended period of limitation invoked by the department was unjustified, as the responsibility to scrutinize returns and make correct assessments lies with the officer. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
The appellant's activity of subscription and redemption of mutual fund units cannot be considered as trading of securities, thus not qualifying as an exempted service u/s 66D(e) of the Finance Act. Additionally, investment in mutual funds does not constitute a 'service' u/s 65B(44) of the Finance Act, as there is no service provider rendering a service to a recipient for consideration. Consequently, proportionate reversal of CENVAT credit availed on common input services was not required. The extended period of limitation invoked by the department was unjustified, as the responsibility to scrutinize returns and make correct assessments lies with the officer. 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 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
