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 service tax cannot be levied on liquidated damages and late payment charges under Section 66E(e) of the Finance Act, as these do not constitute a declared service. The Tribunal referenced CBIC Circular No. 214/1/2023-S.T. and determined that recovery of liquidated damages cannot be considered a service since the appellant was not carrying out any activity to receive compensation, nor was there any intention by the other party to breach contracts. Additionally, the extended period of limitation and penalties were found untenable as there was no suppression of facts, especially considering the appellant's status as a public sector undertaking. The Tribunal set aside the original orders, allowing the appeal.
CESTAT ruled that service tax cannot be levied on liquidated damages and late payment charges under Section 66E(e) of the Finance Act, as these do not constitute a declared service. The Tribunal referenced CBIC Circular No. 214/1/2023-S.T. and determined that recovery of liquidated damages cannot be considered a service since the appellant was not carrying out any activity to receive compensation, nor was there any intention by the other party to breach contracts. Additionally, the extended period of limitation and penalties were found untenable as there was no suppression of facts, especially considering the appellant's status as a public sector undertaking. The Tribunal set aside the original orders, allowing the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
