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 allowed the appeal, setting aside service tax demand against a goods transport agency. The tribunal held that demand cannot be raised solely based on discrepancies between ST-3 returns and Form 26AS/ITR data, as established in precedent cases. Services rendered to body corporates attracted reverse charge mechanism under Notification 30/2012-ST, making the recipient liable for tax payment. Services provided to other GTAs were exempt under entry 22 of Notification 25/2012-ST. The department incorrectly applied best judgment assessment despite regular ST-3 filing and failed to extend cum-tax benefit under Section 67(2). Extended limitation period was improperly invoked as appellant acted in bonafide belief regarding tax liability. The original order was passed ex-parte despite appellant's timely reply to show cause notice.
CESTAT allowed the appeal, setting aside service tax demand against a goods transport agency. The tribunal held that demand cannot be raised solely based on discrepancies between ST-3 returns and Form 26AS/ITR data, as established in precedent cases. Services rendered to body corporates attracted reverse charge mechanism under Notification 30/2012-ST, making the recipient liable for tax payment. Services provided to other GTAs were exempt under entry 22 of Notification 25/2012-ST. The department incorrectly applied best judgment assessment despite regular ST-3 filing and failed to extend cum-tax benefit under Section 67(2). Extended limitation period was improperly invoked as appellant acted in bonafide belief regarding tax liability. The original order was passed ex-parte despite appellant's timely reply to show cause notice.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
