Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
Letting out shops/premises for shops, canteens, banks, etc. is liable to service tax as it is not directly related to agriculture and agricultural produce. The appellant is liable to pay service tax for the period 1.10.2012 to 31.03.2014 as the activities undertaken were for furtherance of business or commerce, not covered under the Negative List of Section 66D. The exemption under Notification No. 33/2012-ST is not applicable as the aggregate value of taxable services rendered by the appellant from one or more premises exceeded Rs.10 lakhs in the preceding financial years, which is a mandatory condition. The Apex Court has held that exemption notifications must be construed strictly, and all conditions must be fulfilled to claim the benefit. The Commissioner's finding that the appellant's total receipts exceeded the threshold limit for exemption is upheld. The appeal is dismissed.
Letting out shops/premises for shops, canteens, banks, etc. is liable to service tax as it is not directly related to agriculture and agricultural produce. The appellant is liable to pay service tax for the period 1.10.2012 to 31.03.2014 as the activities undertaken were for furtherance of business or commerce, not covered under the Negative List of Section 66D. The exemption under Notification No. 33/2012-ST is not applicable as the aggregate value of taxable services rendered by the appellant from one or more premises exceeded Rs.10 lakhs in the preceding financial years, which is a mandatory condition. The Apex Court has held that exemption notifications must be construed strictly, and all conditions must be fulfilled to claim the benefit. The Commissioner's finding that the appellant's total receipts exceeded the threshold limit for exemption is upheld. The appeal is dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
