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...
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.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
