Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
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 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
