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 determined that premium/salami payments for property possession constitute taxable consideration under 'renting of immovable property' service. The Tribunal held that premium represents payment for transfer of property enjoyment rights and falls within service tax scope under Finance Act provisions. For periods before 01.07.2012, such payments are taxable under Section 65(105)(zzzz), and post 01.07.2012 under Section 66B. The Tribunal rejected appellant's contention that premium payments qualify for exclusion under Section 65B(44), noting that declared services cannot simultaneously be excluded from taxation. Matter remanded to Division Benches for merit-based adjudication.
CESTAT determined that premium/salami payments for property possession constitute taxable consideration under 'renting of immovable property' service. The Tribunal held that premium represents payment for transfer of property enjoyment rights and falls within service tax scope under Finance Act provisions. For periods before 01.07.2012, such payments are taxable under Section 65(105)(zzzz), and post 01.07.2012 under Section 66B. The Tribunal rejected appellant's contention that premium payments qualify for exclusion under Section 65B(44), noting that declared services cannot simultaneously be excluded from taxation. Matter remanded to Division Benches for merit-based adjudication.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
