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 impugned demands for service tax, interest and penalty. The Tribunal held that training provided to government employees pursuant to State mandate did not constitute taxable commercial training; vocational courses for disadvantaged/unemployed persons leading to DOEACC "A"/"O" levels were not taxable as commercial coaching; OIDAR demands were unsustainable because the appellant did not supply or own online data or provide data access/retrieval for consideration; and business auxiliary service demands failed for want of specification of the applicable sub-clause of Section 65(19). No wilful suppression was established. Consequently, the confirmed demands in respect of these three heads were held without merit and discharged.
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned demands for service tax, interest and penalty. The Tribunal held that training provided to government employees pursuant to State mandate did not constitute taxable commercial training; vocational courses for disadvantaged/unemployed persons leading to DOEACC "A"/"O" levels were not taxable as commercial coaching; OIDAR demands were unsustainable because the appellant did not supply or own online data or provide data access/retrieval for consideration; and business auxiliary service demands failed for want of specification of the applicable sub-clause of Section 65(19). No wilful suppression was established. Consequently, the confirmed demands in respect of these three heads were held without merit and discharged.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.