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 held that the consortium's services constituted works contract service under Section 65A of the Finance Act, 1994. The tribunal rejected exemption claims under Notifications 11/2010-ST, 32/2010-ST, and 45/2010-ST, finding they did not apply to EPC contract services. The extended period of limitation was not invoked due to bonafide belief and interpretational confusion. Penalties were set aside considering the appellant's government undertaking status. The appeal was partly allowed, upholding service tax classification while providing relief on limitation and penalties.
CESTAT held that the consortium's services constituted works contract service under Section 65A of the Finance Act, 1994. The tribunal rejected exemption claims under Notifications 11/2010-ST, 32/2010-ST, and 45/2010-ST, finding they did not apply to EPC contract services. The extended period of limitation was not invoked due to bonafide belief and interpretational confusion. Penalties were set aside considering the appellant's government undertaking status. The appeal was partly allowed, upholding service tax classification while providing relief on limitation and penalties.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
