Transfer-pricing aggregation of distinct support-service and subcontract transactions was rejected, while debt-free receivables attracted no notional ...
Customs exemptions cover photovoltaic assembly machinery and PVF backsheets, while fully declared cleared imports may avoid confiscation and penalties...
Specific tariff classification for LCD devices overrides treatment as electricity-meter parts, defeating differential duty, extended limitation, and p...
Stayed disciplinary punishment does not establish unfitness for insolvency professional registration; reconsideration must disregard mere pendency of ...
Indirect corporate control can create related-party status, excluding financial creditors from Committee of Creditors representation, participation an...
Page of 4881
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
101 to 120 of 97618 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Impugned order suffered from lack of reasoning regarding variation in service tax estimate between declarant/petitioner and designated authority. 50% of demand confirmed, with petitioner submitting lessee paid said amount eligible for set-off under Sabka Vishwas Scheme. Court held petitioner liable for service tax on immovable property rentals from 2007 under Finance Act, 1994, though lessees unsuccessfully challenged levy before various High Courts. Supreme Court ordered lessees to pay 50% property tax despite not being liable under Finance Act. Impugned order passed by two officers, one not hearing petitioner, violating natural justice. Circular on Sabka Vishwas Scheme unclear on appropriating lessee's deposited amount towards declarant's liability and refund mechanism. Court quashed impugned order, remitting case for fresh orders on merits due to element of doubt.
Impugned order suffered from lack of reasoning regarding variation in service tax estimate between declarant/petitioner and designated authority. 50% of demand confirmed, with petitioner submitting lessee paid said amount eligible for set-off under Sabka Vishwas Scheme. Court held petitioner liable for service tax on immovable property rentals from 2007 under Finance Act, 1994, though lessees unsuccessfully challenged levy before various High Courts. Supreme Court ordered lessees to pay 50% property tax despite not being liable under Finance Act. Impugned order passed by two officers, one not hearing petitioner, violating natural justice. Circular on Sabka Vishwas Scheme unclear on appropriating lessee's deposited amount towards declarant's liability and refund mechanism. Court quashed impugned order, remitting case for fresh orders on merits due to element of doubt.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4881 
