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 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.