Working-capital adjustment determines whether software-services transfer-pricing margins fall within the statutory tolerance range, eliminating any ad...
Permanent establishment deductions upheld for expatriate salaries, direct costs and trading losses, while head-office costs require fresh classificati...
Data transmission equipment classification under CTSH 8517 62 remains distinct from residual classification, with exemption evidence requiring scrutin...
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 
