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 appeal filed by the hospital-assessees, holding that services rendered to doctors/consultants under a revenue-sharing model are not taxable as "Business Support Services" but qualify as "Health Care Services," which are exempt from service tax. Relying on consistent Tribunal precedent, it rejected the department's contention that providing infrastructure and related facilities to doctors constituted support of commerce or business. CESTAT further held that invocation of the extended period of limitation was impermissible as the dispute concerned interpretation of law and the department failed to establish suppression or misstatement; consequently, even the demand for the normal period could not survive.
CESTAT allowed the appeal filed by the hospital-assessees, holding that services rendered to doctors/consultants under a revenue-sharing model are not taxable as "Business Support Services" but qualify as "Health Care Services," which are exempt from service tax. Relying on consistent Tribunal precedent, it rejected the department's contention that providing infrastructure and related facilities to doctors constituted support of commerce or business. CESTAT further held that invocation of the extended period of limitation was impermissible as the dispute concerned interpretation of law and the department failed to establish suppression or misstatement; consequently, even the demand for the normal period could not survive.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.