Overlapping GST proceedings require Central and State authorities to designate one competent authority for coordinated adjudication of the same matter...
Composite healthcare supplies retain exemption when patient care is the contract's essential character, despite payment through an implementing agency...
Receipt of immovable property requires actual possession or enjoyment; redevelopment allotments exchanged for tenancy rights fall outside deemed incom...
Levy of service tax on reimbursement amounts based on Rule 5(1) of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006, and whether the reimbursement amount can be subjected to service tax for the period prior to May 2015. The Supreme Court's decision in Union of India and Anr. v. M/s. Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. is considered, where it was held that the reimbursement amount cannot be treated as "gross amount charged" as it is not a "consideration" for rendering the service. It is noted that the inclusion of reimbursable costs in the value of taxable service cannot be justified before May 14, 2015. Regarding the extended period of limitation, it is held that the requirements of the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act are not satisfied, as the Commissioner could not confirm the demand of service tax for the extended period. The impugned orders are set aside, and the appeal is allowed.
Levy of service tax on reimbursement amounts based on Rule 5(1) of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006, and whether the reimbursement amount can be subjected to service tax for the period prior to May 2015. The Supreme Court's decision in Union of India and Anr. v. M/s. Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. is considered, where it was held that the reimbursement amount cannot be treated as "gross amount charged" as it is not a "consideration" for rendering the service. It is noted that the inclusion of reimbursable costs in the value of taxable service cannot be justified before May 14, 2015. Regarding the extended period of limitation, it is held that the requirements of the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act are not satisfied, as the Commissioner could not confirm the demand of service tax for the extended period. The impugned orders are set aside, and the appeal is allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
