Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
HC ruled that renting cinematographic equipment constituted a deemed sale with transfer of right to use, not a taxable service under Section 66 of Finance Act, 1994. The agreement demonstrated transfer of both possession and effective control to the hirer, evidenced by inspection rights, damage reporting obligations, and equipment condition acknowledgments. The transaction qualified as deemed sale under Article 366(29A) of Constitution, involving transfer of right to use goods for valuable consideration. HC quashed the original order that had incorrectly interpreted the agreement terms regarding possession and control transfer. The case established that where right of possession and effective control transfers, service tax cannot be levied as it falls outside the scope of taxable services.
HC ruled that renting cinematographic equipment constituted a deemed sale with transfer of right to use, not a taxable service under Section 66 of Finance Act, 1994. The agreement demonstrated transfer of both possession and effective control to the hirer, evidenced by inspection rights, damage reporting obligations, and equipment condition acknowledgments. The transaction qualified as deemed sale under Article 366(29A) of Constitution, involving transfer of right to use goods for valuable consideration. HC quashed the original order that had incorrectly interpreted the agreement terms regarding possession and control transfer. The case established that where right of possession and effective control transfers, service tax cannot be levied as it falls outside the scope of taxable services.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
