Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Page of 4813
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3301 to 3320 of 96257 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 
TaxTMI 
of 4813 
Join Channel 
