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" ?
Appellant challenged levy of service tax on commission paid to foreign agents for export of goods during Sep 2013-Sep 2014 under reverse charge, denial of CENVAT credit, and invocation of extended period of limitation. CESTAT held that mere non-disclosure doesn't amount to wilful suppression to invoke extended limitation period u/s 73(1) proviso of Finance Act. Suppression must be deliberate with intent to evade tax as per Supreme Court's ruling in Pushpam Pharmaceuticals case. Since appellant declared transactions in financial records and no positive act of wilful suppression was established by department, extended period couldn't be invoked. Appeal allowed.
Appellant challenged levy of service tax on commission paid to foreign agents for export of goods during Sep 2013-Sep 2014 under reverse charge, denial of CENVAT credit, and invocation of extended period of limitation. CESTAT held that mere non-disclosure doesn't amount to wilful suppression to invoke extended limitation period u/s 73(1) proviso of Finance Act. Suppression must be deliberate with intent to evade tax as per Supreme Court's ruling in Pushpam Pharmaceuticals case. Since appellant declared transactions in financial records and no positive act of wilful suppression was established by department, extended period couldn't be invoked. Appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.