Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires highway contract benchmarks to reflect operation, maintenance and transfer activities, requiring fresh be...
The appellant received services classifiable as online information and database access or retrieval (OIDAR) services from outside India. As the recipient of such services, the appellant was held liable to pay service tax u/ss 66A and 68 of the Finance Act, 1994, read with Rule 2(1)(d)(iv) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, for the period from October 1, 2006, to March 2008, along with interest u/s 75 of the Act. The demand for service tax and interest was upheld. However, the penalties imposed u/ss 76 and 77 of the Act were set aside, as there was no suppression of facts, and the demand arose due to interpretation of legal provisions. The appeals were partially allowed to the extent of setting aside the penalties.
The appellant received services classifiable as online information and database access or retrieval (OIDAR) services from outside India. As the recipient of such services, the appellant was held liable to pay service tax u/ss 66A and 68 of the Finance Act, 1994, read with Rule 2(1)(d)(iv) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, for the period from October 1, 2006, to March 2008, along with interest u/s 75 of the Act. The demand for service tax and interest was upheld. However, the penalties imposed u/ss 76 and 77 of the Act were set aside, as there was no suppression of facts, and the demand arose due to interpretation of legal provisions. The appeals were partially allowed to the extent of setting aside the penalties.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
