Bogus donation receipts justified commission income assessment and defeated political-party tax exemption for inaccurate accounts and reporting failur...
Pure reimbursement without income element escapes tax withholding, while delayed withholding and unsupported provisions face deferred or renewed scrut...
Public benefit requirement defeats charitable registration where residents' association services are reciprocal, member-only facilities governed by mu...
Exempt-income expenditure disallowance is confined to investments that actually generated exempt income, while supported business expenses remain dedu...
Objective characteristics and principal use govern mining-tyre classification, while fresh advance ruling applications may rely on additional technica...
Page of 4788
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
461 to 480 of 95752 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CESTAT held that appellant was liable to pay service tax on selling commission under reverse charge mechanism. The selling agent services provided by M/s. Parah from UAE to appellant in India constituted "business auxiliary service" under Section 65(105)(zzb) of Finance Act, 1994. Per Section 66A read with Rule 2(1)(d)(iv) of Service Tax Rules, 1994, appellant as recipient was required to discharge service tax liability. However, CESTAT modified the order by restricting demand to normal period of limitation due to revenue neutrality, noting that mere non-registration and non-filing of returns cannot justify extended period invocation. Penalties under Sections 77(2) and 78 were set aside. Appeal partially allowed.
CESTAT held that appellant was liable to pay service tax on selling commission under reverse charge mechanism. The selling agent services provided by M/s. Parah from UAE to appellant in India constituted "business auxiliary service" under Section 65(105)(zzb) of Finance Act, 1994. Per Section 66A read with Rule 2(1)(d)(iv) of Service Tax Rules, 1994, appellant as recipient was required to discharge service tax liability. However, CESTAT modified the order by restricting demand to normal period of limitation due to revenue neutrality, noting that mere non-registration and non-filing of returns cannot justify extended period invocation. Penalties under Sections 77(2) and 78 were set aside. Appeal partially allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
