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 allowed refund claims for service tax wrongly collected and paid on 'construction of complex' services during September 2008 to May 2010. Following KVR Construction precedent, the tribunal held that amounts paid under mistaken notion cannot be classified as service tax when no legal obligation existed. The limitation period under Section 11B of Central Excise Act 1944 was deemed inapplicable as the payment did not constitute legitimate service tax. The tribunal overturned the lower authorities' rejection of refund claims based on time limitation, affirming that service tax was not leviable on construction services prior to July 1, 2010, per the explanation to Section 65(105)(zza) of Finance Act, 1994.
CESTAT allowed refund claims for service tax wrongly collected and paid on 'construction of complex' services during September 2008 to May 2010. Following KVR Construction precedent, the tribunal held that amounts paid under mistaken notion cannot be classified as service tax when no legal obligation existed. The limitation period under Section 11B of Central Excise Act 1944 was deemed inapplicable as the payment did not constitute legitimate service tax. The tribunal overturned the lower authorities' rejection of refund claims based on time limitation, affirming that service tax was not leviable on construction services prior to July 1, 2010, per the explanation to Section 65(105)(zza) of Finance Act, 1994.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.