Duplicate PAN allocation requires record verification and deactivation reasons before assessment-related transactions can be attributed to an assessee...
Faceless assessment safeguards require requested personal hearings and adequate final show-cause response time, failing which reassessment is required...
Embezzlement losses in charitable institutions remain allowable when misappropriation is established, irrecoverable, and not a specified-person benefi...
National long-distance undertaking status supports deduction where separately licensed infrastructure, resources, revenue, and expenditure establish c...
Agency reimbursement income follows contractual deposit-liability computation, while pending deposit collections do not constitute deemed-dividend loa...
Page of 4883
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
41 to 60 of 97649 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CESTAT adjudicated a service tax dispute involving OIDAR services contracted by an overseas head office with CRS/GDS companies. The tribunal held that services provided between entities in Singapore and Hong Kong fall outside service tax levy under Section 66. The Indian branch office was not deemed liable for service tax on reverse charge basis, as the services were conducted exclusively between non-Indian entities. The tribunal distinguished between head office and branch office legal identities, concluding that the branch office cannot be compelled to pay service tax for transactions not directly involving Indian territorial jurisdiction. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
CESTAT adjudicated a service tax dispute involving OIDAR services contracted by an overseas head office with CRS/GDS companies. The tribunal held that services provided between entities in Singapore and Hong Kong fall outside service tax levy under Section 66. The Indian branch office was not deemed liable for service tax on reverse charge basis, as the services were conducted exclusively between non-Indian entities. The tribunal distinguished between head office and branch office legal identities, concluding that the branch office cannot be compelled to pay service tax for transactions not directly involving Indian territorial jurisdiction. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4883 
