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 the appeal against service tax demand, setting aside the original order. The demand was found unsustainable as proper determination of taxable value under Section 67 of Finance Act, 1994 was absent. The adjudicating authority failed to consider crucial elements including the nature of services rendered, specific activities under negative list (Section 66D), exemptions under mega notification, and applicable abatements under Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006. The tribunal held that merely relying on profit and loss accounts and Form 26AS data without analyzing the actual taxable value and service nature violated principles of natural justice. A comprehensive reassessment considering all relevant service tax provisions was directed.
CESTAT allowed the appeal against service tax demand, setting aside the original order. The demand was found unsustainable as proper determination of taxable value under Section 67 of Finance Act, 1994 was absent. The adjudicating authority failed to consider crucial elements including the nature of services rendered, specific activities under negative list (Section 66D), exemptions under mega notification, and applicable abatements under Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006. The tribunal held that merely relying on profit and loss accounts and Form 26AS data without analyzing the actual taxable value and service nature violated principles of natural justice. A comprehensive reassessment considering all relevant service tax provisions was directed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
