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 held that the appellant's arrangement with M/s X Pvt. Ltd. for operating car parking facilities in the mall basement and additional parking area was a profit-sharing service contract and not a lease of space. The Tribunal noted that the entire parking revenue was first credited to the appellant's bank account and only thereafter was the operator's share remitted, evidencing revenue sharing rather than fixed rental. Accordingly, the activity qualified as "services by way of vehicle parking to general public" eligible for exemption under the applicable notification, and not as "leasing of space for an entity for providing parking facility." Observing violation of judicial discipline by the lower authority, CESTAT set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal.
CESTAT held that the appellant's arrangement with M/s X Pvt. Ltd. for operating car parking facilities in the mall basement and additional parking area was a profit-sharing service contract and not a lease of space. The Tribunal noted that the entire parking revenue was first credited to the appellant's bank account and only thereafter was the operator's share remitted, evidencing revenue sharing rather than fixed rental. Accordingly, the activity qualified as "services by way of vehicle parking to general public" eligible for exemption under the applicable notification, and not as "leasing of space for an entity for providing parking facility." Observing violation of judicial discipline by the lower authority, CESTAT set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.