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" ?
HC declared unconstitutional Rule 10 of the Place of Provision of Service Rules, 2012 and Rule 2(1)(d)(EEC) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 and struck down Section 66B (read with Rule 10) insofar as it purported to levy service tax on sea-transportation of goods from a place outside India to the customs station of clearance where both provider and recipient are located outside India. Consequentially, the court quashed enforcement proceedings premised on the impugned notifications and rules, upheld earlier similar holdings, and ordered respondents to verify particulars and refund any service tax paid by the petitioner pursuant to Notification No.15/2017, granting the writ petition with consequential reliefs.
HC declared unconstitutional Rule 10 of the Place of Provision of Service Rules, 2012 and Rule 2(1)(d)(EEC) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 and struck down Section 66B (read with Rule 10) insofar as it purported to levy service tax on sea-transportation of goods from a place outside India to the customs station of clearance where both provider and recipient are located outside India. Consequentially, the court quashed enforcement proceedings premised on the impugned notifications and rules, upheld earlier similar holdings, and ordered respondents to verify particulars and refund any service tax paid by the petitioner pursuant to Notification No.15/2017, granting the writ petition with consequential reliefs.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.