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" ?
CESTAT allowed the appeal by appellant banks and set aside the adjudged service tax demands, interest and penalties in the impugned order dated 28.02.2017. The Tribunal held that charges levied by foreign correspondent/intermediary banks in export-related remittance and document-transfer transactions do not attract service tax on a reverse charge mechanism basis where Indian banks act for client exporters, and confirmed that liability under RCM is unsustainable. Relying on coordinate-bench reasoning, the Tribunal found no legal basis to treat Indian banks as recipients of taxable services rendered by foreign banks in such export settlements, and therefore quashed the departmental demand and related consequential penalties.
CESTAT allowed the appeal by appellant banks and set aside the adjudged service tax demands, interest and penalties in the impugned order dated 28.02.2017. The Tribunal held that charges levied by foreign correspondent/intermediary banks in export-related remittance and document-transfer transactions do not attract service tax on a reverse charge mechanism basis where Indian banks act for client exporters, and confirmed that liability under RCM is unsustainable. Relying on coordinate-bench reasoning, the Tribunal found no legal basis to treat Indian banks as recipients of taxable services rendered by foreign banks in such export settlements, and therefore quashed the departmental demand and related consequential penalties.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.