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 Indian banks are not recipients of services of foreign banks in export/import transactions for settlement of foreign remittances and therefore are not liable to pay service tax under the Reverse Charge Mechanism for bank charges deducted by foreign or correspondent banks. The Tribunal relied on prior coordinate bench reasoning and relevant High Court authority distinguishing exporter/importer liability from the bank's role. The adjudged demands, interest and penalties levied on the appellants for alleged service tax liability on such bank charges were found legally unsustainable. The impugned orders confirming liability are set aside and the appeal is allowed, with the contested demands, interest and penalties quashed.
CESTAT held that Indian banks are not recipients of services of foreign banks in export/import transactions for settlement of foreign remittances and therefore are not liable to pay service tax under the Reverse Charge Mechanism for bank charges deducted by foreign or correspondent banks. The Tribunal relied on prior coordinate bench reasoning and relevant High Court authority distinguishing exporter/importer liability from the bank's role. The adjudged demands, interest and penalties levied on the appellants for alleged service tax liability on such bank charges were found legally unsustainable. The impugned orders confirming liability are set aside and the appeal is allowed, with the contested demands, interest and penalties quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.