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 held that lease agreements for fitouts constituted a "deemed sale" under Article 366(29A) of the Constitution rather than a taxable service. The tribunal affirmed the Commissioner's findings that the goods were identifiable, available for delivery, and leased to the respondents for exclusive use. The Commissioner properly applied the Supreme Court's Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd test in determining that VAT had been correctly paid on these transactions. The tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument regarding dominant nature of the transaction, concluding that once a transaction qualifies as a deemed sale, service tax liability does not arise. The department's appeal was accordingly dismissed.
CESTAT held that lease agreements for fitouts constituted a "deemed sale" under Article 366(29A) of the Constitution rather than a taxable service. The tribunal affirmed the Commissioner's findings that the goods were identifiable, available for delivery, and leased to the respondents for exclusive use. The Commissioner properly applied the Supreme Court's Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd test in determining that VAT had been correctly paid on these transactions. The tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument regarding dominant nature of the transaction, concluding that once a transaction qualifies as a deemed sale, service tax liability does not arise. The department's appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.