Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
CESTAT ruled that allocation of head office administrative expenses from SCB-UK to Indian branches does not constitute taxable business support services under Finance Act, 1994. The Tribunal determined no identifiable service provider existed, and cost allocation based on revenue, headcount, or profit parameters did not qualify as consideration for services. For pre-May 2011 period, such activities were outside tax scope. Post-July 2012, mere expense sharing between head office and branch without service agreement cannot be subjected to service tax. The Tribunal emphasized that deductions claimed under Income Tax Act for head office expenses do not automatically constitute taxable services. Following precedents from Tech Mahindra and SAIL cases, CESTAT held that fund transfers were mere reimbursements, not taxable services.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.