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 allowed the appeal, set aside the Commissioner's order and held that the service tax levy did not survive for the adjudicated periods. For the pre-01.07.2010 period there was no allegation of express authorization by a port for the appellant's activities and the activities did not fall within the pre-2010 conception of "port service." For the period on and after 01.07.2010 the Tribunal construed "port service" as requiring a "service" rendered within a port; neither demurrage (delayed unloading) nor despatch money (early departure) constituted a "service" within that definition. Consequently no taxable service was rendered by the appellant in respect of demurrage or despatch.
CESTAT allowed the appeal, set aside the Commissioner's order and held that the service tax levy did not survive for the adjudicated periods. For the pre-01.07.2010 period there was no allegation of express authorization by a port for the appellant's activities and the activities did not fall within the pre-2010 conception of "port service." For the period on and after 01.07.2010 the Tribunal construed "port service" as requiring a "service" rendered within a port; neither demurrage (delayed unloading) nor despatch money (early departure) constituted a "service" within that definition. Consequently no taxable service was rendered by the appellant in respect of demurrage or despatch.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
