Transfer-pricing aggregation of distinct support-service and subcontract transactions was rejected, while debt-free receivables attracted no notional ...
Customs exemptions cover photovoltaic assembly machinery and PVF backsheets, while fully declared cleared imports may avoid confiscation and penalties...
Specific tariff classification for LCD devices overrides treatment as electricity-meter parts, defeating differential duty, extended limitation, and p...
Stayed disciplinary punishment does not establish unfitness for insolvency professional registration; reconsideration must disregard mere pendency of ...
Indirect corporate control can create related-party status, excluding financial creditors from Committee of Creditors representation, participation an...
Page of 4881
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
101 to 120 of 97618 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The CESTAT allowed the appeal of M/s X against the impugned order, setting aside the service tax demand of Rs. 2,22,51,053/- on amounts wrongly treated as taxable advances, holding them to be refundable loans not linked to any taxable service. The Tribunal further held that the service tax demand of Rs. 16,44,878/- under RCM on imported services was unsustainable, being a revenue-neutral situation, and also barred by limitation as the extended period could not be invoked through a third SCN on the same issue. Consequently, interest and penalties under Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 were quashed. However, late fee of Rs. 21,700/- for delayed ST-3 returns was upheld, subject to adjustment of Rs. 7,900/- already paid.
The CESTAT allowed the appeal of M/s X against the impugned order, setting aside the service tax demand of Rs. 2,22,51,053/- on amounts wrongly treated as taxable advances, holding them to be refundable loans not linked to any taxable service. The Tribunal further held that the service tax demand of Rs. 16,44,878/- under RCM on imported services was unsustainable, being a revenue-neutral situation, and also barred by limitation as the extended period could not be invoked through a third SCN on the same issue. Consequently, interest and penalties under Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 were quashed. However, late fee of Rs. 21,700/- for delayed ST-3 returns was upheld, subject to adjustment of Rs. 7,900/- already paid.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4881 
