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 foreclosure charges collected by appellants on premature loan termination and seizure charges for vehicle release following loan default do not constitute taxable services under Banking and Financial Services category. The tribunal distinguished these penalty charges from core banking services, noting they are collected as penalties for non-performance of contractual clauses rather than for provision of taxable services. Relying on Supreme Court precedent in Bhayana Builders and CESTAT Larger Bench decision in Repco Home Finance, the tribunal concluded such charges cannot form part of gross taxable value under Section 65(105) of Finance Act, 1994. The impugned order demanding service tax on these charges was set aside and appeal allowed.
CESTAT held that foreclosure charges collected by appellants on premature loan termination and seizure charges for vehicle release following loan default do not constitute taxable services under Banking and Financial Services category. The tribunal distinguished these penalty charges from core banking services, noting they are collected as penalties for non-performance of contractual clauses rather than for provision of taxable services. Relying on Supreme Court precedent in Bhayana Builders and CESTAT Larger Bench decision in Repco Home Finance, the tribunal concluded such charges cannot form part of gross taxable value under Section 65(105) of Finance Act, 1994. The impugned order demanding service tax on these charges was set aside and appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.