Form 26AS evidence requires successor-entity accounting verification after business transfer, while invoice-supported related-party advertising expend...
Money-laundering judgment timing requires awaiting the scheduled-offence decision despite continuation of the underlying trial where outcomes directly...
Accredited investor eligibility expands through securities-market exposure, while alternative investment fund disputes require prescribed resolution a...
Page of 4916
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
41 to 60 of 98302 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 the appellant's services could not be classified as intermediary services for the period July 2012 to March 2014. As per Rule 3 of the Place of Provision of Services Rules, the place of provision was the location of the service recipient outside India. Since payment was received in convertible foreign exchange, the services qualified as export of services u/r 6 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. Consequently, no service tax was leviable, and the demand was set aside. The appeal was allowed.
The CESTAT held that the appellant's services could not be classified as intermediary services for the period July 2012 to March 2014. As per Rule 3 of the Place of Provision of Services Rules, the place of provision was the location of the service recipient outside India. Since payment was received in convertible foreign exchange, the services qualified as export of services u/r 6 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. Consequently, no service tax was leviable, and the demand was set aside. The appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4916 
