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 CESTAT held that service tax cannot be levied on the value of goods sold during execution of a works contract. The taxable value is the value of services rendered, determined as per Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Rule 2A of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006. The Department failed to identify the nature of services and discharge its onus before confirming the demand. Out of the total consideration, the amount pertaining to sale of goods was excluded from the taxable value. Service tax was payable only on 40% of the remaining amount as per the specified percentage. As no tax remained unpaid, no penalty u/ss 78 or 77(2) was imposable. The appeal was allowed.
The CESTAT held that service tax cannot be levied on the value of goods sold during execution of a works contract. The taxable value is the value of services rendered, determined as per Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Rule 2A of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006. The Department failed to identify the nature of services and discharge its onus before confirming the demand. Out of the total consideration, the amount pertaining to sale of goods was excluded from the taxable value. Service tax was payable only on 40% of the remaining amount as per the specified percentage. As no tax remained unpaid, no penalty u/ss 78 or 77(2) was imposable. The appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.