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...
Functional comparability governs software-service benchmarking: dissimilar companies are excluded, while related-party filters, margins and working-ca...
CESTAT held that the appellant, as service recipient under the reverse charge mechanism, was not eligible for the exemption available to a non-taxable territory service provider under Notification No. 14/2004-ST; further, the exemption was conditional and limited to 1% of FOB, which the appellant exceeded and failed to substantiate through required EXP-4 filings. However, the Tribunal found no evidence of deliberate suppression with intent to evade duty and held the department's invocation of the extended period of limitation unjustified. Consequently the show cause notice was time-barred, the demand set aside, the impugned order quashed, and the appeal allowed in favour of the appellant.
CESTAT held that the appellant, as service recipient under the reverse charge mechanism, was not eligible for the exemption available to a non-taxable territory service provider under Notification No. 14/2004-ST; further, the exemption was conditional and limited to 1% of FOB, which the appellant exceeded and failed to substantiate through required EXP-4 filings. However, the Tribunal found no evidence of deliberate suppression with intent to evade duty and held the department's invocation of the extended period of limitation unjustified. Consequently the show cause notice was time-barred, the demand set aside, the impugned order quashed, and the appeal allowed in favour of the appellant.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4830 
Join Channel 
