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 appellant's belief in the exemption from service tax was bona fide and supported by the agreement and conduct of the Railway Authorities, negating any suppression of facts with intent to evade tax. Consequently, the invocation of the extended limitation period under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act was held unsustainable. The Tribunal noted that the Department failed to invoke Section 73A, which alone could support extended recovery, rendering the impugned order invalid. Furthermore, since the service recipient was Indian Railways, a government entity, the revenue lacked authority to recover service tax from the appellant on behalf of another government organization. The impugned order was set aside and the appeal allowed.
The CESTAT held that the appellant's belief in the exemption from service tax was bona fide and supported by the agreement and conduct of the Railway Authorities, negating any suppression of facts with intent to evade tax. Consequently, the invocation of the extended limitation period under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act was held unsustainable. The Tribunal noted that the Department failed to invoke Section 73A, which alone could support extended recovery, rendering the impugned order invalid. Furthermore, since the service recipient was Indian Railways, a government entity, the revenue lacked authority to recover service tax from the appellant on behalf of another government organization. The impugned order was set aside and the appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.