Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires highway contract benchmarks to reflect operation, maintenance and transfer activities, requiring fresh be...
The CESTAT held that the appellant did not collect any amount representing service tax from sub-agents/customers. The amount recovered was the service tax already paid by the appellant on the commission retained by the sub-agents. No service tax was actually collected payable u/s 73A(2). The revenue wrongly alleged illegal collection of service tax from sub-agents, ignoring that commission was shared with sub-agents, and the tax burden was accordingly shared. Demanding service tax again on the sub-agents' commission portion would amount to double taxation. The CESTAT set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal.
The CESTAT held that the appellant did not collect any amount representing service tax from sub-agents/customers. The amount recovered was the service tax already paid by the appellant on the commission retained by the sub-agents. No service tax was actually collected payable u/s 73A(2). The revenue wrongly alleged illegal collection of service tax from sub-agents, ignoring that commission was shared with sub-agents, and the tax burden was accordingly shared. Demanding service tax again on the sub-agents' commission portion would amount to double taxation. The CESTAT set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
