Transfer pricing and tax deductions upheld on established principles, while employee contributions and warranty provisions returned for fresh examinat...
Captive transfer pricing relies on industrial consumer tariffs, while genuine quotations can benchmark effluent treatment transfers under the Other Me...
Specific tariff classification for ophthalmic instruments and extended limitation principles determine the treatment of duty demands, confiscation, an...
Integrated golf function determines classification, placing launch monitors and simulators under other golf equipment rather than measuring instrument...
Public servant status under anti-corruption law extends to recognised stock exchange leadership; constitutional and sanction challenges do not succeed...
Acquiescence, homebuyer protection and clean-slate resolution principles prevent landowners from disrupting an integrated project through late termina...
The CESTAT allowed the appeal concerning advisory services provided by appellant to JCB UK, determining these constituted export of services under Rule 6A of Service Tax Rules, 1994. The Tribunal found that JCB UK's business establishment, where company decisions were made, was located in United Kingdom. Under Rule 2(i)(b)(i) of POPS Rules, services were deemed received at JCB UK's business establishment, placing the location of service recipient outside India's taxable territory. Following precedent from the Larger Bench ruling in Arcelor Mittal case, the Tribunal held that JCB UK was the service recipient as they commissioned and paid for the services. Consequently, the services qualified as exports exempt from service tax, and the original order was set aside.
The CESTAT allowed the appeal concerning advisory services provided by appellant to JCB UK, determining these constituted export of services under Rule 6A of Service Tax Rules, 1994. The Tribunal found that JCB UK's business establishment, where company decisions were made, was located in United Kingdom. Under Rule 2(i)(b)(i) of POPS Rules, services were deemed received at JCB UK's business establishment, placing the location of service recipient outside India's taxable territory. Following precedent from the Larger Bench ruling in Arcelor Mittal case, the Tribunal held that JCB UK was the service recipient as they commissioned and paid for the services. Consequently, the services qualified as exports exempt from service tax, and the original order was set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.