The accused denied bail over alleged GST credential misuse to commit Rs.1,09,11,404 fraud involving multiple proprietorships; investigation to continu...
Page of 4826
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
9701 to 9720 of 96509 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, concluding that reimbursable expenses recovered by a service provider are not includible in the taxable value where they satisfy the conditions of a "pure agent" under Rule 5(2) of the Valuation Rules read with Explanation 1. The Tribunal held the question is settled by the apex court's affirmation of the High Court's decision striking down Rule 5(1) as ultra vires the charging provisions, thereby excluding incidental expenditures borne and discharged by the client from service tax valuation. Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and the Revenue's demand insofar as such reimbursable expenses is dismissed.
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order, concluding that reimbursable expenses recovered by a service provider are not includible in the taxable value where they satisfy the conditions of a "pure agent" under Rule 5(2) of the Valuation Rules read with Explanation 1. The Tribunal held the question is settled by the apex court's affirmation of the High Court's decision striking down Rule 5(1) as ultra vires the charging provisions, thereby excluding incidental expenditures borne and discharged by the client from service tax valuation. Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and the Revenue's demand insofar as such reimbursable expenses is dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4826 
Join Channel 
