Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
CESTAT ruled against Revenue's contention that services constituted intermediary services u/r 9 of Place of Provision of Service Rules, 2012. The Tribunal emphasized that intermediary services require a tripartite arrangement involving a supplier, recipient, and facilitator. In this case, only a bipartite agreement existed between Respondent and overseas clients for identifying prospective buyers. The services were provided directly on Respondent's own account, not facilitating supply between parties. Following precedents from IDEX India and Cube Highways cases, which established that advisory services rendered independently do not qualify as intermediary services, CESTAT dismissed Revenue's appeal, confirming the services qualified as export of services.
CESTAT ruled against Revenue's contention that services constituted intermediary services u/r 9 of Place of Provision of Service Rules, 2012. The Tribunal emphasized that intermediary services require a tripartite arrangement involving a supplier, recipient, and facilitator. In this case, only a bipartite agreement existed between Respondent and overseas clients for identifying prospective buyers. The services were provided directly on Respondent's own account, not facilitating supply between parties. Following precedents from IDEX India and Cube Highways cases, which established that advisory services rendered independently do not qualify as intermediary services, CESTAT dismissed Revenue's appeal, confirming the services qualified as export of services.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
