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 that the appellant provided taxable "renting of immovable property service" by leasing 22.68 acres of vacant land to the lessee. The tribunal found the revenue sharing arrangement was essentially a rental agreement, not a principal-to-principal contract. The additional lease amount calculated as 75% of receipts did not alter the rental nature of the transaction. Service tax demand, extended limitation period, and penalties were upheld as legally valid, with the appellant's deliberate suppression of lease income constituting willful tax evasion. The appeal was consequently dismissed.
CESTAT adjudicated that the appellant provided taxable "renting of immovable property service" by leasing 22.68 acres of vacant land to the lessee. The tribunal found the revenue sharing arrangement was essentially a rental agreement, not a principal-to-principal contract. The additional lease amount calculated as 75% of receipts did not alter the rental nature of the transaction. Service tax demand, extended limitation period, and penalties were upheld as legally valid, with the appellant's deliberate suppression of lease income constituting willful tax evasion. The appeal was consequently dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
