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 appeals and set aside the impugned order denying refund of unutilized CENVAT credit under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal held that the services rendered by the appellant to an overseas recipient do not qualify as "intermediary services" under Rule 2(f) of the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012, as there is no involvement of three parties, no distinct main and ancillary supplies, and no principal-agent relationship. Applying Rule 3 of the POPS Rules and Rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, CESTAT held that the services are exports, and therefore eligible for refund. The original orders sanctioning the refund were restored, and the Revenue's denial was declared unsustainable in law.
CESTAT allowed the appeals and set aside the impugned order denying refund of unutilized CENVAT credit under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal held that the services rendered by the appellant to an overseas recipient do not qualify as "intermediary services" under Rule 2(f) of the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012, as there is no involvement of three parties, no distinct main and ancillary supplies, and no principal-agent relationship. Applying Rule 3 of the POPS Rules and Rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, CESTAT held that the services are exports, and therefore eligible for refund. The original orders sanctioning the refund were restored, and the Revenue's denial was declared unsustainable in law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.