Transfer-pricing treatment of ITeS margins excludes pass-through tax recoveries and separate delayed-receivables interest after working-capital adjust...
Capacity-utilisation adjustments under TNMM can neutralise substantiated COVID-related idle costs where underutilisation materially affects profitabil...
TNMM functional comparability requires excluding rice manufacturers from a pure Basmati rice trader's benchmark and recognising operating export recei...
Working-capital adjustment subsumes delayed-receivable effects in TNMM benchmarking of captive software-development services, avoiding separate notion...
Transfer-pricing comparability requires exclusion of financially illogical super-profit comparables and correction of unsupported annual-report and ma...
Charitable character assessment preserves Section 80G approval despite inclusive spiritual teachings and incidental religious expenditure within the s...
Penalty proceedings for cash-loan acceptance require assessment proceedings and recorded Assessing Officer satisfaction; absent these, the proceedings...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The appellant, being the developer/co-developer in a Special Economic Zone (SEZ), is entitled to a refund of service tax paid in relation to their authorized operations. The CESTAT Ahmedabad Bench, relying on previous decisions, held that the substantive benefit of service tax exemption u/s 26 of the SEZ Act cannot be negated by notifications issued under other enactments. The procedural and technical objections raised by the revenue were rejected. Once the tax was charged, collected, and paid, the recipient cannot be burdened to explain the levy. The appellant successfully established eligibility for a refund of service tax paid for transportation of passengers' services within the SEZ. Consequently, the appellant is entitled to the refund of service tax paid for services used in authorized SEZ operations, and the appeals were allowed.
The appellant, being the developer/co-developer in a Special Economic Zone (SEZ), is entitled to a refund of service tax paid in relation to their authorized operations. The CESTAT Ahmedabad Bench, relying on previous decisions, held that the substantive benefit of service tax exemption u/s 26 of the SEZ Act cannot be negated by notifications issued under other enactments. The procedural and technical objections raised by the revenue were rejected. Once the tax was charged, collected, and paid, the recipient cannot be burdened to explain the levy. The appellant successfully established eligibility for a refund of service tax paid for transportation of passengers' services within the SEZ. Consequently, the appellant is entitled to the refund of service tax paid for services used in authorized SEZ operations, and the appeals were allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
