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 adjudicated a service tax dispute involving jurisdictional challenges and tax exemption claims. The tribunal rejected arguments challenging the Assistant Commissioner's authority, emphasizing operational continuity in tax administration. The court clarified Article 12's limited applicability to fundamental rights and dismissed misinterpretations regarding state definition. Regarding exemption claims under Notification No. 25/2012-ST, the tribunal determined that market infrastructure structures were primarily commercial, thus ineligible for tax exemption. The tribunal found the appellant's conduct indicative of tax evasion, consequently upholding the extended limitation period, service tax demand, and penalty under sections 73, 75, and 77 of the Finance Act. The appeal was ultimately dismissed, confirming the original tax assessment and penalties.
CESTAT adjudicated a service tax dispute involving jurisdictional challenges and tax exemption claims. The tribunal rejected arguments challenging the Assistant Commissioner's authority, emphasizing operational continuity in tax administration. The court clarified Article 12's limited applicability to fundamental rights and dismissed misinterpretations regarding state definition. Regarding exemption claims under Notification No. 25/2012-ST, the tribunal determined that market infrastructure structures were primarily commercial, thus ineligible for tax exemption. The tribunal found the appellant's conduct indicative of tax evasion, consequently upholding the extended limitation period, service tax demand, and penalty under sections 73, 75, and 77 of the Finance Act. The appeal was ultimately dismissed, confirming the original tax assessment and penalties.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.