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 and set aside the impugned order insofar as it confirmed a Service Tax demand of Rs.2,05,90,153/-. The Tribunal found that the appellant acted as a "pure agent" in receiving reimbursements (stevedoring, freight, fender supply, spares, survey, launch hire, etc.) on an actual basis, as certified by the Chartered Accountant, and therefore such third-party disbursements are not includable in the assessable value under Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994 (prior to 14.05.2015). Because the tax demand was annulled, consequential interest and penalties could not be sustained. The impugned order is therefore set aside and the appeal is allowed.
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order insofar as it confirmed a Service Tax demand of Rs.2,05,90,153/-. The Tribunal found that the appellant acted as a "pure agent" in receiving reimbursements (stevedoring, freight, fender supply, spares, survey, launch hire, etc.) on an actual basis, as certified by the Chartered Accountant, and therefore such third-party disbursements are not includable in the assessable value under Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994 (prior to 14.05.2015). Because the tax demand was annulled, consequential interest and penalties could not be sustained. The impugned order is therefore set aside and the appeal is allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.