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 service tax is not leviable on royalty payments made under reverse charge for the assignment of mining rights conferred prior to 01.04.2016, as the mining lease was executed before that date. Relying on precedent affirmed by the Supreme Court, the tribunal found that the Point of Taxation Rules do not determine the taxability of the service but only the timing of payment. Accordingly, the appellant's royalty payments from April 2016 to June 2017 were held non-taxable. The entire service tax demand was set aside, and no penalty was imposed. The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant.
The CESTAT held that service tax is not leviable on royalty payments made under reverse charge for the assignment of mining rights conferred prior to 01.04.2016, as the mining lease was executed before that date. Relying on precedent affirmed by the Supreme Court, the tribunal found that the Point of Taxation Rules do not determine the taxability of the service but only the timing of payment. Accordingly, the appellant's royalty payments from April 2016 to June 2017 were held non-taxable. The entire service tax demand was set aside, and no penalty was imposed. The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.