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" ?
1. The services provided by the appellant amounted to mining activities and fell within the scope of "mining services" u/s 65(105)(zzzy) of the Finance Act, 1994, introduced on 01.06.2007. 2. The activities were not preparatory work but constituted mining activities per se to win the minerals (lignite). Therefore, they cannot be classified as "Site formation and clearance, excavation and earthmoving and demolition" u/s 65(97a). 3. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Doypack Systems P Ltd, the services related to mining of lignite, which is a mineral, and thus qualified as mining services. 4. The appellant is eligible for a refund of Rs. 4,60,77,978 paid as service tax before 01.06.2007, as the services were not taxable prior to that date. 5. The appellant has crossed the bar of unjust enrichment by providing evidence that the tax burden was borne by them. 6. The appellant is entitled to interest on the delayed refund payment as per Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944, from the expiry of 3 months from the date of the original refund application. 7.
1. The services provided by the appellant amounted to mining activities and fell within the scope of "mining services" u/s 65(105)(zzzy) of the Finance Act, 1994, introduced on 01.06.2007. 2. The activities were not preparatory work but constituted mining activities per se to win the minerals (lignite). Therefore, they cannot be classified as "Site formation and clearance, excavation and earthmoving and demolition" u/s 65(97a). 3. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Doypack Systems P Ltd, the services related to mining of lignite, which is a mineral, and thus qualified as mining services. 4. The appellant is eligible for a refund of Rs. 4,60,77,978 paid as service tax before 01.06.2007, as the services were not taxable prior to that date. 5. The appellant has crossed the bar of unjust enrichment by providing evidence that the tax burden was borne by them. 6. The appellant is entitled to interest on the delayed refund payment as per Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944, from the expiry of 3 months from the date of the original refund application. 7.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
