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 two distinct service classifications under separate agreements with CONCOR. Under the first agreement for terminal handling, the service was classified as "supply of tangible goods" based on hiring of reach stackers at fixed rates, not cargo handling. For the second agreement involving cargo operations, the tribunal remanded the matter regarding service tax liability on export cargo for fresh adjudication. The adjudicating authority must reconsider the case after allowing appellant to submit additional evidence within 6 weeks to substantiate claims about export cargo handling and challenge the extended limitation period. The appeal was partially allowed through remand, with clear distinction maintained between supply of equipment and actual cargo handling services.
CESTAT determined two distinct service classifications under separate agreements with CONCOR. Under the first agreement for terminal handling, the service was classified as "supply of tangible goods" based on hiring of reach stackers at fixed rates, not cargo handling. For the second agreement involving cargo operations, the tribunal remanded the matter regarding service tax liability on export cargo for fresh adjudication. The adjudicating authority must reconsider the case after allowing appellant to submit additional evidence within 6 weeks to substantiate claims about export cargo handling and challenge the extended limitation period. The appeal was partially allowed through remand, with clear distinction maintained between supply of equipment and actual cargo handling services.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.