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 electricity generated by the appellant constitutes "excisable goods" under Section 2(d) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as it is specified in the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (Tariff Item No. 2716 0000) and is marketable. Despite the absence of a prescribed excise duty rate for electricity, it qualifies as excisable goods. Regarding the levy of service tax, the Tribunal distinguished the transaction as a contract of sale rather than a service contract. Following precedent affirmed by the Supreme Court, it was held that no service tax is leviable on the sale of electricity. Consequently, the impugned order demanding service tax was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant.
The CESTAT held that electricity generated by the appellant constitutes "excisable goods" under Section 2(d) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as it is specified in the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (Tariff Item No. 2716 0000) and is marketable. Despite the absence of a prescribed excise duty rate for electricity, it qualifies as excisable goods. Regarding the levy of service tax, the Tribunal distinguished the transaction as a contract of sale rather than a service contract. Following precedent affirmed by the Supreme Court, it was held that no service tax is leviable on the sale of electricity. Consequently, the impugned order demanding service tax was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.