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 that the appellant's software solution, customized to meet clients' specific business requirements with modifications to source code, constituted a sale of goods rather than a service. The transaction involved transferring full control and possession of the customized software to clients with exclusive usage rights, while intellectual property remained with the appellant. The license fee collected was correctly subjected to VAT by the appellant and cannot simultaneously be liable for service tax, as these taxes are mutually exclusive. Following Quick Heal Technologies v. CST, Delhi [2020], the Tribunal held that the transaction constituted a sale of goods rather than provision of services. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the service tax demand, interest, and penalties.
CESTAT ruled that the appellant's software solution, customized to meet clients' specific business requirements with modifications to source code, constituted a sale of goods rather than a service. The transaction involved transferring full control and possession of the customized software to clients with exclusive usage rights, while intellectual property remained with the appellant. The license fee collected was correctly subjected to VAT by the appellant and cannot simultaneously be liable for service tax, as these taxes are mutually exclusive. Following Quick Heal Technologies v. CST, Delhi [2020], the Tribunal held that the transaction constituted a sale of goods rather than provision of services. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the service tax demand, interest, and penalties.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
