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...
Functional comparability governs software-service benchmarking: dissimilar companies are excluded, while related-party filters, margins and working-ca...
CESTAT dismissed the Revenue's appeal, ruling that the respondent's "income from assignment of loan" (excess interest spread between borrower payments and assignee yield) is not taxable as a recovery service. The Tribunal determined that when the respondent sold/assigned loan portfolios to banks/financial institutions, they continued collecting payments from borrowers as the original lender, not as a recovery agent. While the respondent paid service tax on nominal fees received under separate collection agency agreements, the interest income retained was properly exempt under Rule 6(2)(iv) of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006. The Tribunal cited its previous ruling in Sundaram Finance Ltd., confirming these transactions were principal-to-principal with no service element.
CESTAT dismissed the Revenue's appeal, ruling that the respondent's "income from assignment of loan" (excess interest spread between borrower payments and assignee yield) is not taxable as a recovery service. The Tribunal determined that when the respondent sold/assigned loan portfolios to banks/financial institutions, they continued collecting payments from borrowers as the original lender, not as a recovery agent. While the respondent paid service tax on nominal fees received under separate collection agency agreements, the interest income retained was properly exempt under Rule 6(2)(iv) of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006. The Tribunal cited its previous ruling in Sundaram Finance Ltd., confirming these transactions were principal-to-principal with no service element.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4830 
Join Channel 
