Transfer pricing and tax deductions upheld on established principles, while employee contributions and warranty provisions returned for fresh examinat...
Captive transfer pricing relies on industrial consumer tariffs, while genuine quotations can benchmark effluent treatment transfers under the Other Me...
Specific tariff classification for ophthalmic instruments and extended limitation principles determine the treatment of duty demands, confiscation, an...
Integrated golf function determines classification, placing launch monitors and simulators under other golf equipment rather than measuring instrument...
Public servant status under anti-corruption law extends to recognised stock exchange leadership; constitutional and sanction challenges do not succeed...
Acquiescence, homebuyer protection and clean-slate resolution principles prevent landowners from disrupting an integrated project through late termina...
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 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
