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 ruled ADA's activities are taxable under "construction of complex service" despite being a development authority. Court rejected appellant's claim of exemption as a government authority, finding services were not statutory functions. Following L&T precedent, CESTAT directed recalculation of tax value with applicable abatements. Extended limitation period was invalidated as ADA, being a state development body, lacked evasion intent. Only normal limitation period demand sustained. Matter remanded to Original Authority for de novo adjudication on value determination after allowing abatements. Appeal partially allowed with specific direction to reassess tax liability within normal limitation period.
CESTAT ruled ADA's activities are taxable under "construction of complex service" despite being a development authority. Court rejected appellant's claim of exemption as a government authority, finding services were not statutory functions. Following L&T precedent, CESTAT directed recalculation of tax value with applicable abatements. Extended limitation period was invalidated as ADA, being a state development body, lacked evasion intent. Only normal limitation period demand sustained. Matter remanded to Original Authority for de novo adjudication on value determination after allowing abatements. Appeal partially allowed with specific direction to reassess tax liability within normal limitation period.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
