ESOP expenditure allowed as FMV difference; long-term capital gain issue sent back for collector rate determination; deferred income additions disallo...
Appeal allowed; impugned order quashed as regulator failed to prove nexus or manipulative scheme; sale genuine - s.12A(a)-(c), Regs 3(a)-(d),4(1),4(2)...
Appellant's ring-back tone service held OIDAR, taxable domestically for 01.07.2012-31.07.2016; liability confirmed, penalties vacated, remanded for re...
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the demand against the appellant (a domestic affiliate), holding that the taxable event for services performed beyond India's territorial waters did not arise against the appellant. The Tribunal found single contracts partly performed offshore and partly onshore; valuation may include total consideration where services provided from outside India are received in India, and the applicable rate is 12%. However, by operation of section 66A the statutory liability lay on the Indian service recipients, who must pay service tax as if they were the providers when the actual provider is located outside India. The tax demand against the appellant was therefore unsustainable and was quashed.
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the demand against the appellant (a domestic affiliate), holding that the taxable event for services performed beyond India's territorial waters did not arise against the appellant. The Tribunal found single contracts partly performed offshore and partly onshore; valuation may include total consideration where services provided from outside India are received in India, and the applicable rate is 12%. However, by operation of section 66A the statutory liability lay on the Indian service recipients, who must pay service tax as if they were the providers when the actual provider is located outside India. The tax demand against the appellant was therefore unsustainable and was quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
