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 upheld the imposition of service tax on the appellants for providing Business Support Services to the respondent, rejecting their characterization of the transactions as transfer of developmental rights in immovable property, which fall outside service tax ambit. The tribunal found that the appellants intentionally concealed the true nature of the transactions to evade tax, justifying invocation of the extended limitation period. The arrangement was correctly treated as taxable business support services rather than a sale of transferable development rights. Consequently, the demand for service tax was confirmed, and the appeal was dismissed for lack of merit.
The CESTAT upheld the imposition of service tax on the appellants for providing Business Support Services to the respondent, rejecting their characterization of the transactions as transfer of developmental rights in immovable property, which fall outside service tax ambit. The tribunal found that the appellants intentionally concealed the true nature of the transactions to evade tax, justifying invocation of the extended limitation period. The arrangement was correctly treated as taxable business support services rather than a sale of transferable development rights. Consequently, the demand for service tax was confirmed, and the appeal was dismissed for lack of merit.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
