Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires highway contract benchmarks to reflect operation, maintenance and transfer activities, requiring fresh be...
CESTAT partially allowed the appeal. It held that VOSTRO-related commissions constituted export of services where payment was received in convertible foreign exchange and recipients lacked an Indian business establishment; demands for service tax on VOSTRO transactions for 01.04.2012-30.06.2012 and for the post-negative list period (through 31.03.2013) were set aside. Conversely, charges paid to SWIFT were held to be import of services falling within "banking and other financial services," and the service-tax demand in respect of SWIFT charges was sustained. Penalties relating to SWIFT were remitted under Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994, on the ground of reasonable cause.
CESTAT partially allowed the appeal. It held that VOSTRO-related commissions constituted export of services where payment was received in convertible foreign exchange and recipients lacked an Indian business establishment; demands for service tax on VOSTRO transactions for 01.04.2012-30.06.2012 and for the post-negative list period (through 31.03.2013) were set aside. Conversely, charges paid to SWIFT were held to be import of services falling within "banking and other financial services," and the service-tax demand in respect of SWIFT charges was sustained. Penalties relating to SWIFT were remitted under Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994, on the ground of reasonable cause.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
