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 service tax demand raised beyond the statutory limitation period of thirty months was barred by limitation, as the extended five-year period could not be invoked absent evidence of fraud, collusion, or willful misstatement. The appellant had duly declared export of services in their returns, and there was no indication that the department conducted the requisite scrutiny or sought further information, thereby precluding invocation of the extended limitation period. Consequently, the notice issued after the limitation period was invalid. Given this finding, the tribunal declined to address whether the appellant qualified as an intermediary under the POPS Rules or whether the services constituted export under Rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules. The impugned order demanding service tax was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
The CESTAT held that the service tax demand raised beyond the statutory limitation period of thirty months was barred by limitation, as the extended five-year period could not be invoked absent evidence of fraud, collusion, or willful misstatement. The appellant had duly declared export of services in their returns, and there was no indication that the department conducted the requisite scrutiny or sought further information, thereby precluding invocation of the extended limitation period. Consequently, the notice issued after the limitation period was invalid. Given this finding, the tribunal declined to address whether the appellant qualified as an intermediary under the POPS Rules or whether the services constituted export under Rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules. The impugned order demanding service tax was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
