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" ?
The CESTAT allowed the appellant's appeal, set aside the impugned order and quashed demands for service tax, interest and penalties insofar as they related to forfeited earnest money, security deposits, fines and penal charges. The Tribunal held such forfeitures are penal in nature and lack nexus with any taxable "consideration" for the declared service under section 66E(e) of the Finance Act, 1994; they do not constitute consideration for agreeing to refrain or tolerate an act and therefore are not includible in taxable value. The adjudicating authorities were rebuked for disregarding precedent, characterized as judicial indiscipline, and were warned to exercise greater care in future proceedings.
The CESTAT allowed the appellant's appeal, set aside the impugned order and quashed demands for service tax, interest and penalties insofar as they related to forfeited earnest money, security deposits, fines and penal charges. The Tribunal held such forfeitures are penal in nature and lack nexus with any taxable "consideration" for the declared service under section 66E(e) of the Finance Act, 1994; they do not constitute consideration for agreeing to refrain or tolerate an act and therefore are not includible in taxable value. The adjudicating authorities were rebuked for disregarding precedent, characterized as judicial indiscipline, and were warned to exercise greater care in future proceedings.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.