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 dismissed the appeal, upholding service tax liability on the appellant for works contract services rendered to a Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti. The Tribunal held that, though constituted under a State enactment, the Samiti does not qualify as a "Government authority" under Notification No. 25/2012-ST (as amended), when read with Article 243W and the Twelfth Schedule, and thus services provided to it are not per se exempt. Exemption under Sl. No. 12(e) was denied as the activities did not fall within the notified categories. Exemption under Sl. No. 13(a) was also rejected since the roads constructed were not for use by the general public but within restricted residential/other complexes.
CESTAT dismissed the appeal, upholding service tax liability on the appellant for works contract services rendered to a Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti. The Tribunal held that, though constituted under a State enactment, the Samiti does not qualify as a "Government authority" under Notification No. 25/2012-ST (as amended), when read with Article 243W and the Twelfth Schedule, and thus services provided to it are not per se exempt. Exemption under Sl. No. 12(e) was denied as the activities did not fall within the notified categories. Exemption under Sl. No. 13(a) was also rejected since the roads constructed were not for use by the general public but within restricted residential/other complexes.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.