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 upheld that the appellant is liable to service tax for site formation, clearance, excavation, earthmoving and demolition services for the period 2008-09 to 30.06.2012, rejecting its works-contract classification argument and denial of liability. The Tribunal affirmed denial of exemption under the relevant notification for lack of contractual evidence and sustained invocation of the extended period, finding wilful evasion and rejecting bona fide ignorance. CESTAT partially set aside penalties (reducing the penalty imposed under Section 78 to the limited extent specified) but did not disturb demands acknowledged by the appellant. The Tribunal remitted the balance of duty, interest and penalties to the adjudicating authority for de novo adjudication with limited legal observations; appeal allowed in part.
CESTAT upheld that the appellant is liable to service tax for site formation, clearance, excavation, earthmoving and demolition services for the period 2008-09 to 30.06.2012, rejecting its works-contract classification argument and denial of liability. The Tribunal affirmed denial of exemption under the relevant notification for lack of contractual evidence and sustained invocation of the extended period, finding wilful evasion and rejecting bona fide ignorance. CESTAT partially set aside penalties (reducing the penalty imposed under Section 78 to the limited extent specified) but did not disturb demands acknowledged by the appellant. The Tribunal remitted the balance of duty, interest and penalties to the adjudicating authority for de novo adjudication with limited legal observations; appeal allowed in part.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.