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" ?
HC held that TCS under Section 206C(1C) of IT Act is not applicable to compounding fees collected from illegal miners/transporters under MMDR Act. The court ruled that Section 206C(1C) mandates TCS collection only from lease holders, license holders, or parties with contractual rights in mines who pay royalty to State Government through District Mining Officer. Compounding fees collected under Section 23A of MMDR Act read with Rule 71(5) of Chhattisgarh Minor Mineral Rules, 2015 from illegal mining offenders are distinct from royalty payments. The court emphasized that royalty and compounding fees are mutually exclusive terms with no legislative mandate to collect TCS on compounding fees. ITAT's judgment imposing TCS demand, interest, and penalty was set aside, with substantial question of law decided favoring assessee against Revenue.
HC held that TCS under Section 206C(1C) of IT Act is not applicable to compounding fees collected from illegal miners/transporters under MMDR Act. The court ruled that Section 206C(1C) mandates TCS collection only from lease holders, license holders, or parties with contractual rights in mines who pay royalty to State Government through District Mining Officer. Compounding fees collected under Section 23A of MMDR Act read with Rule 71(5) of Chhattisgarh Minor Mineral Rules, 2015 from illegal mining offenders are distinct from royalty payments. The court emphasized that royalty and compounding fees are mutually exclusive terms with no legislative mandate to collect TCS on compounding fees. ITAT's judgment imposing TCS demand, interest, and penalty was set aside, with substantial question of law decided favoring assessee against Revenue.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
