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 of the Appellant, set aside the impugned order and quashed the demand for alleged short payment of service tax, holding that the Appellant validly availed Input Tax Credit of Rs.1,35,370 as supported by CA certificates and that a demand based solely on discrepancies between Form 26AS and ST-3 returns is untenable. The Tribunal found Revenue erred in raising demand without examining whether Form 26AS reflected gross receipts including exempted or abated amounts or whether differences arose from exemptions/abatements; Revenue must establish that the differential wholly constituted taxable consideration before presuming tax liability.
CESTAT allowed the appeal of the Appellant, set aside the impugned order and quashed the demand for alleged short payment of service tax, holding that the Appellant validly availed Input Tax Credit of Rs.1,35,370 as supported by CA certificates and that a demand based solely on discrepancies between Form 26AS and ST-3 returns is untenable. The Tribunal found Revenue erred in raising demand without examining whether Form 26AS reflected gross receipts including exempted or abated amounts or whether differences arose from exemptions/abatements; Revenue must establish that the differential wholly constituted taxable consideration before presuming tax liability.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.