Pre-amendment reassessment limitation bars late notices under the preserved regime, invalidating consequential reassessment for affected earlier asses...
Cash-sales explanations for bank deposits require documentary reconciliation; reassessment notice survived where effective response time was available...
Functional comparability in transfer pricing prevents ad hoc arm's length adjustments where functions, assets, risks and reliable comparables are unes...
Contingency expenses, exempt-income disallowance, and royalty benchmarking: unsupported adjustments were deleted under consistent accounting and trans...
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 4918 
