Business deductions and transfer pricing issues: tribunal treatment of software write-offs, donation receipts, warranty provisions, and related expens...
Page of 4814
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
2921 to 2940 of 96262 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. The Tribunal held that a single appeal filed by the corporate headquarters representing multiple units under one PAN is maintainable because liabilities are consolidated at head office; Explanation (2) to Rule 6A does not compel separate appeals where noticees are not distinct legal entities. EPC/turnkey contracts were held divisible; supplies of equipment under separate sale contracts could not be aggregated into the value of works contracts for Service Tax. The extended period invocation was unwarranted for lack of fraud or suppression. Consequently tax demands, interest and penalties were quashed, and the penalty under s.78A on the managing director was set aside.
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order. The Tribunal held that a single appeal filed by the corporate headquarters representing multiple units under one PAN is maintainable because liabilities are consolidated at head office; Explanation (2) to Rule 6A does not compel separate appeals where noticees are not distinct legal entities. EPC/turnkey contracts were held divisible; supplies of equipment under separate sale contracts could not be aggregated into the value of works contracts for Service Tax. The extended period invocation was unwarranted for lack of fraud or suppression. Consequently tax demands, interest and penalties were quashed, and the penalty under s.78A on the managing director was set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
