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...
Human-probability test defeats political donation deduction where banking records mask accommodation-entry fund layering and evidence shows non-genuin...
Commercial property status protects capital-gains exemption when residential-house ownership limits are tested, while agricultural-land character gove...
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 4883 
