Government water works contract GST concession applied before its withdrawal, while contractual tax reimbursement claims lay outside advance-ruling sc...
Stamp valuation increases after registration-fee payment led to deletion of property-purchase addition within tolerance and without valuation referral...
Capital Asset Conversion Requires Proven Business Stock Treatment; Paper Consideration in Spousal Flat Transfers Does Not Create Taxable Business Inco...
Page of 4881
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
341 to 360 of 97618 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that the appellants did not render intermediary services for their foreign principal. The services provided by the appellants were classified as export of services, making them eligible for refund of unutilized CENVAT credit. However, the matter was remanded to the original authority to calculate the eligible refund amount based on actual foreign remittances received during the respective quarters, as the appellants failed to submit certain Foreign Inward Remittance Certificates (FIRCs). The appeals were disposed of accordingly.
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that the appellants did not render intermediary services for their foreign principal. The services provided by the appellants were classified as export of services, making them eligible for refund of unutilized CENVAT credit. However, the matter was remanded to the original authority to calculate the eligible refund amount based on actual foreign remittances received during the respective quarters, as the appellants failed to submit certain Foreign Inward Remittance Certificates (FIRCs). The appeals were disposed of accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4881 
