Employee stock-shortage penalties do not constitute consideration for services, preventing GST collection under Schedule II in employment relationship...
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...
Page of 4830
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
181 to 200 of 96587 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 set aside the demand for service tax on royalty charges under reverse charge, aligning with precedent that rights assigned predate payment terms. Denial of CENVAT credit on capital goods used partly for exempt services was reversed, recognizing credit eligibility where goods serve both taxable and exempt activities. However, the order was remanded regarding input service credit reversal, as the original authority failed to correctly apply proportionate reversal under Rule 6 of CCR, 2004. Service tax demands on works contract services were upheld, as the appellant failed to remit tax collected under specified work orders. Invocation of the extended limitation period was upheld due to non-cooperation and suppression of records during audit. Interest for delayed tax payment and penalties under Section 78 were confirmed. The appeal was allowed in part, with certain demands set aside and others restored or remanded for reassessment.
The CESTAT set aside the demand for service tax on royalty charges under reverse charge, aligning with precedent that rights assigned predate payment terms. Denial of CENVAT credit on capital goods used partly for exempt services was reversed, recognizing credit eligibility where goods serve both taxable and exempt activities. However, the order was remanded regarding input service credit reversal, as the original authority failed to correctly apply proportionate reversal under Rule 6 of CCR, 2004. Service tax demands on works contract services were upheld, as the appellant failed to remit tax collected under specified work orders. Invocation of the extended limitation period was upheld due to non-cooperation and suppression of records during audit. Interest for delayed tax payment and penalties under Section 78 were confirmed. The appeal was allowed in part, with certain demands set aside and others restored or remanded for reassessment.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4830 
Join Channel 
