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 services rendered prior to 30.06.2012 are correctly classifiable as 'Commercial or Industrial Construction Service' (CICS), entitling the appellant to abatement. For the period post 01.07.2012, services were appropriately classified as 'works contract service', with valuation under Rule 2(A)(ii) being valid. The tribunal set aside demands raised under extended limitation period, finding no intentional tax evasion. The department's order was quashed as it exceeded the show cause notice's scope, violating principles of natural justice. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, with no penalties imposed.
CESTAT ruled that services rendered prior to 30.06.2012 are correctly classifiable as 'Commercial or Industrial Construction Service' (CICS), entitling the appellant to abatement. For the period post 01.07.2012, services were appropriately classified as 'works contract service', with valuation under Rule 2(A)(ii) being valid. The tribunal set aside demands raised under extended limitation period, finding no intentional tax evasion. The department's order was quashed as it exceeded the show cause notice's scope, violating principles of natural justice. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, with no penalties imposed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
