Employee stock-shortage penalties do not constitute consideration for services, preventing GST collection under Schedule II in employment relationship...
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...
Page of 4830
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
181 to 200 of 96587 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 filed by a Central Para Military Force against service tax demand on notional value of facilities provided by SSP. The appellant had discharged service tax on consideration received for security services but the Department demanded tax on additional facilities like rent-free accommodation, office premises, electricity, vehicles, fuel, medical treatment, and stationery provided by SSP. The Tribunal held that without evidence of actual payment or quantified cost in the MOU, notional value cannot be included in taxable value under Section 67(1)(ii) of Finance Act, 1994 and Rule 3(3) of Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006. The Tribunal also found no suppression by the appellant to invoke extended limitation period. Following precedent in CGST CCE Dehradun v. Commandant CISF Unit, the demand was set aside on both merits and limitation grounds.
CESTAT allowed the appeal filed by a Central Para Military Force against service tax demand on notional value of facilities provided by SSP. The appellant had discharged service tax on consideration received for security services but the Department demanded tax on additional facilities like rent-free accommodation, office premises, electricity, vehicles, fuel, medical treatment, and stationery provided by SSP. The Tribunal held that without evidence of actual payment or quantified cost in the MOU, notional value cannot be included in taxable value under Section 67(1)(ii) of Finance Act, 1994 and Rule 3(3) of Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006. The Tribunal also found no suppression by the appellant to invoke extended limitation period. Following precedent in CGST CCE Dehradun v. Commandant CISF Unit, the demand was set aside on both merits and limitation grounds.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4830 
Join Channel 
