Receipt of immovable property requires actual possession or enjoyment; redevelopment allotments exchanged for tenancy rights fall outside deemed incom...
Section 80P deduction covers Souharda credit societies, including qualifying surplus-deposit interest, subject to member KYC verification for cash dep...
Transfer-pricing benchmarking and capital-receipt principles sustained taxpayer relief, while unsupported property-advance write-offs remained disallo...
CESTAT held that the commission paid by the appellant company to its Managing Director and Executive Director in addition to their salary is not liable to service tax under the reverse charge mechanism as per Sr. No. 5A of Notification No. 30/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 as amended by Notification No. 45/2012 dated 07.08.2012. The Tribunal relied on its earlier decision in the appellant's own case, where it was held that the commission paid to Directors by the Company does not fall under the service of Business Auxiliary Service and is accordingly not liable to service tax. Considering the Tribunal's previous orders and decisions cited by the appellant's counsel, the issue stands decided in favor of the assessee, and the impugned order was set aside.
CESTAT held that the commission paid by the appellant company to its Managing Director and Executive Director in addition to their salary is not liable to service tax under the reverse charge mechanism as per Sr. No. 5A of Notification No. 30/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 as amended by Notification No. 45/2012 dated 07.08.2012. The Tribunal relied on its earlier decision in the appellant's own case, where it was held that the commission paid to Directors by the Company does not fall under the service of Business Auxiliary Service and is accordingly not liable to service tax. Considering the Tribunal's previous orders and decisions cited by the appellant's counsel, the issue stands decided in favor of the assessee, and the impugned order was set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.