Charitable trust income application permits verified capital expenditure but rejects deferred pre-operative claims and requires reconsideration of con...
Reinsurance premium deductions require established regulatory breaches, while independently acquired software qualifies within the computer depreciati...
Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Page of 4801
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
861 to 880 of 96001 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 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
