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" ?
HC held that tax deposited during investigation on non-taxable services, later found exempt, cannot be retained by the Department, as there was no authority of law to levy or collect such amount. It ruled that mere deposit or description as "service tax" does not convert a non-leviable amount into valid tax. Limitation under Section 102(3) of the Finance Act, 1994 and reliance on the exemption notification could not defeat the assessee's substantive right to refund, particularly after departmental acknowledgment of non-liability. The impugned order was set aside, and the appellant was held entitled to refund with applicable interest, preventing unjust enrichment of the Revenue.
HC held that tax deposited during investigation on non-taxable services, later found exempt, cannot be retained by the Department, as there was no authority of law to levy or collect such amount. It ruled that mere deposit or description as "service tax" does not convert a non-leviable amount into valid tax. Limitation under Section 102(3) of the Finance Act, 1994 and reliance on the exemption notification could not defeat the assessee's substantive right to refund, particularly after departmental acknowledgment of non-liability. The impugned order was set aside, and the appellant was held entitled to refund with applicable interest, preventing unjust enrichment of the Revenue.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.