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" ?
The CESTAT dismissed the appellant's refund claim for service tax paid on 60% of the value of services rendered under reverse charge mechanism. The Tribunal held that refund proceedings are in the nature of execution proceedings, and refunds cannot be sanctioned without first modifying the assessment, following the Supreme Court's decision in ITC Ltd. The adjudicating authority had determined on merits that the appellant was liable to pay service tax on 50% of the total billing amount. The CESTAT confirmed that a self-assessed return constitutes an assessment which, unless properly challenged and modified through appropriate legal channels, cannot be questioned in refund proceedings, consistent with the ruling in Jagdamba Phosphate.
The CESTAT dismissed the appellant's refund claim for service tax paid on 60% of the value of services rendered under reverse charge mechanism. The Tribunal held that refund proceedings are in the nature of execution proceedings, and refunds cannot be sanctioned without first modifying the assessment, following the Supreme Court's decision in ITC Ltd. The adjudicating authority had determined on merits that the appellant was liable to pay service tax on 50% of the total billing amount. The CESTAT confirmed that a self-assessed return constitutes an assessment which, unless properly challenged and modified through appropriate legal channels, cannot be questioned in refund proceedings, consistent with the ruling in Jagdamba Phosphate.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.