Transfer-pricing treatment of ITeS margins excludes pass-through tax recoveries and separate delayed-receivables interest after working-capital adjust...
Capacity-utilisation adjustments under TNMM can neutralise substantiated COVID-related idle costs where underutilisation materially affects profitabil...
TNMM functional comparability requires excluding rice manufacturers from a pure Basmati rice trader's benchmark and recognising operating export recei...
Working-capital adjustment subsumes delayed-receivable effects in TNMM benchmarking of captive software-development services, avoiding separate notion...
Transfer-pricing comparability requires exclusion of financially illogical super-profit comparables and correction of unsupported annual-report and ma...
Charitable character assessment preserves Section 80G approval despite inclusive spiritual teachings and incidental religious expenditure within the s...
Penalty proceedings for cash-loan acceptance require assessment proceedings and recorded Assessing Officer satisfaction; absent these, the proceedings...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96556 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 does not constitute Online Information and Data Based Access or Retrieval Services (OIDAR) as it involves developing software/websites or providing consultancy on the internet, which requires significant human intervention. The appellant's services do not involve merely accessing or retrieving online data, which is a prerequisite for OIDAR services as per the circular. The demand for service tax was based on a wrong presumption that the appellant's activity qualified as OIDAR. Rule 6(A) of the Service Tax Rules was also incorrectly invoked. Consequently, the Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal and denied the confirmation of the service tax demand.
The appellant's activity does not constitute Online Information and Data Based Access or Retrieval Services (OIDAR) as it involves developing software/websites or providing consultancy on the internet, which requires significant human intervention. The appellant's services do not involve merely accessing or retrieving online data, which is a prerequisite for OIDAR services as per the circular. The demand for service tax was based on a wrong presumption that the appellant's activity qualified as OIDAR. Rule 6(A) of the Service Tax Rules was also incorrectly invoked. Consequently, the Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal and denied the confirmation of the service tax demand.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
