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" ?
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.
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.