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 held that services rendered in the demarcated CCTL-CFS area are not port services and that subcontractors performing cargo handling activities are taxable service providers; accordingly the demand for service tax on merits was sustained against the appellant and the revenue. However, invocation of the proviso to Section 73(1) FA, 1994 for an extended period was rejected because no evidence of wilful suppression or misstatement was found, the amounts were reflected in public financial statements and ST-3 returns, and the appellants acted under a bona fide belief based on precedent. Consequently the demand is barred by limitation and the appeal is allowed.
CESTAT held that services rendered in the demarcated CCTL-CFS area are not port services and that subcontractors performing cargo handling activities are taxable service providers; accordingly the demand for service tax on merits was sustained against the appellant and the revenue. However, invocation of the proviso to Section 73(1) FA, 1994 for an extended period was rejected because no evidence of wilful suppression or misstatement was found, the amounts were reflected in public financial statements and ST-3 returns, and the appellants acted under a bona fide belief based on precedent. Consequently the demand is barred by limitation and the appeal is allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.