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...
The case pertains to the levy of service tax on commercial coaching or training services. The Finance Act, 2010 inserted an explanation in Section 65(105)(zzc) retrospectively from July 1, 2003, clarifying that the word 'commercial' would mean training or coaching services provided for consideration, irrespective of profit motive. Notification no. 33/2011 granted exemptions to coaching and training centers leading to a certificate, diploma, degree, or other educational qualification recognized by law. The Board clarified that 'recognized by any law' encompasses courses approved or recognized by any entity established under Central or State legislation for granting recognition to educational courses. The High Court found that the petitioner was neither affiliated with a University nor enabled by statute to grant degrees or diplomas. The CESTAT concluded that the petitioner's appeals lacked merit, while the Department's appeals were allowed. The petition was dismissed.
The case pertains to the levy of service tax on commercial coaching or training services. The Finance Act, 2010 inserted an explanation in Section 65(105)(zzc) retrospectively from July 1, 2003, clarifying that the word 'commercial' would mean training or coaching services provided for consideration, irrespective of profit motive. Notification no. 33/2011 granted exemptions to coaching and training centers leading to a certificate, diploma, degree, or other educational qualification recognized by law. The Board clarified that 'recognized by any law' encompasses courses approved or recognized by any entity established under Central or State legislation for granting recognition to educational courses. The High Court found that the petitioner was neither affiliated with a University nor enabled by statute to grant degrees or diplomas. The CESTAT concluded that the petitioner's appeals lacked merit, while the Department's appeals were allowed. The petition was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
