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 partial payment of tax liability. The tribunal determined that since the appellant had paid Rs. 9,88,319/- of the total Rs. 11,16,723/- service tax demand prior to show cause notice, and subsequently paid the remaining Rs. 1,28,404/- with interest and penalty within 30 days of the confirming order, the appellant qualifies for penalty reduction to 25% under Section 78 of Finance Act, 1994. The tribunal modified the original demand, confirming only the balance amount and reducing the penalty quantum. The appeal was partly allowed, granting the appellant the benefit of the statutory proviso for penalty mitigation.
CESTAT adjudicated a service tax dispute involving partial payment of tax liability. The tribunal determined that since the appellant had paid Rs. 9,88,319/- of the total Rs. 11,16,723/- service tax demand prior to show cause notice, and subsequently paid the remaining Rs. 1,28,404/- with interest and penalty within 30 days of the confirming order, the appellant qualifies for penalty reduction to 25% under Section 78 of Finance Act, 1994. The tribunal modified the original demand, confirming only the balance amount and reducing the penalty quantum. The appeal was partly allowed, granting the appellant the benefit of the statutory proviso for penalty mitigation.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.