Electronic WhatsApp evidence without authentication or independent corroboration cannot sustain an unexplained-investment addition based on third-part...
Mutual current-account transactions excluded from deemed dividend treatment where no fresh borrowing arose; unsupported unsecured-loan addition also f...
The CESTAT held that the services provided by the appellant did not qualify as Online Information Data and Access Retrieval (OIDAR) services. The appellant performed activities like copyediting, typesetting, formatting, proofreading, graphic designing, indexing, and coding on data provided by a foreign entity, without owning or transferring the data. As the appellant did not provide access or retrieval of owned data, the services did not fall under OIDAR. The appellant's services qualified as exports, entitling them to a refund u/r 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules. The appeal was allowed.
The CESTAT held that the services provided by the appellant did not qualify as Online Information Data and Access Retrieval (OIDAR) services. The appellant performed activities like copyediting, typesetting, formatting, proofreading, graphic designing, indexing, and coding on data provided by a foreign entity, without owning or transferring the data. As the appellant did not provide access or retrieval of owned data, the services did not fall under OIDAR. The appellant's services qualified as exports, entitling them to a refund u/r 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules. The appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
