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" ?
The CESTAT held that the appellant's receipt of access to software tools hosted on an overseas server constitutes an Online Information Database Access or Retrieval (OIDAR) service, making the appellant liable for service tax under the reverse charge mechanism. However, the Tribunal found that the extended period of limitation for tax demand invocation was not applicable, as the appellant had duly disclosed the receipt of such services, made payments accordingly, and filed refund claims under the relevant rules. Consequently, the demand for service tax was barred by limitation. The appeal was allowed on the sole ground that the extended period of limitation could not be invoked against the appellant.
The CESTAT held that the appellant's receipt of access to software tools hosted on an overseas server constitutes an Online Information Database Access or Retrieval (OIDAR) service, making the appellant liable for service tax under the reverse charge mechanism. However, the Tribunal found that the extended period of limitation for tax demand invocation was not applicable, as the appellant had duly disclosed the receipt of such services, made payments accordingly, and filed refund claims under the relevant rules. Consequently, the demand for service tax was barred by limitation. The appeal was allowed on the sole ground that the extended period of limitation could not be invoked against the appellant.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.