Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Merchant banker regulation consolidates registration, governance, capital, reporting, outsourcing and investor-protection requirements under an update...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
601 to 620 of 95957 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 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
