Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) dismissed the Revenue's appeal. It held that the transaction between the parties constituted a job work arrangement, not a 'supply of tangible goods for use service'. The respondent installed machinery at the client's factory premises to carry out production activities using their own machines. No lease rent or consideration was charged for the 'supply of tangible goods for use'. The charges collected were for the production process on a job work basis, as evident from the invoices. Therefore, the demand of service tax under the 'supply of tangible goods for use service' was incorrect.
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) dismissed the Revenue's appeal. It held that the transaction between the parties constituted a job work arrangement, not a 'supply of tangible goods for use service'. The respondent installed machinery at the client's factory premises to carry out production activities using their own machines. No lease rent or consideration was charged for the 'supply of tangible goods for use'. The charges collected were for the production process on a job work basis, as evident from the invoices. Therefore, the demand of service tax under the 'supply of tangible goods for use service' was incorrect.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
