Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
The respondent's services rendered to their parent company in the USA are classified as an 'intermediary service' or 'export service'. The basic requirement for an intermediary is the presence of at least three parties, where the intermediary arranges or facilitates the supply of goods or services between two or more other persons but does not provide the main supply. The case is similar to an illustration where a BPO firm provides customer care services to a manufacturer by interacting with the manufacturer's customers, charging the manufacturer for this service. The BPO firm is involved in supplying the main service of customer care to the manufacturer and is not an intermediary. Therefore, the respondent's services are not considered an intermediary service, and the Revenue's appeal lacks merit.
The respondent's services rendered to their parent company in the USA are classified as an 'intermediary service' or 'export service'. The basic requirement for an intermediary is the presence of at least three parties, where the intermediary arranges or facilitates the supply of goods or services between two or more other persons but does not provide the main supply. The case is similar to an illustration where a BPO firm provides customer care services to a manufacturer by interacting with the manufacturer's customers, charging the manufacturer for this service. The BPO firm is involved in supplying the main service of customer care to the manufacturer and is not an intermediary. Therefore, the respondent's services are not considered an intermediary service, and the Revenue's appeal lacks merit.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
