Consultancy fees claimed as business expense-can tax disallowance rest on survey suspicion despite invoices, contracts and bank trail? Appeal dismisse...
Page of 4819
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
7501 to 7520 of 96365 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CESTAT held that remittances made by the appellant to overseas subsidiaries/licensees during April 2014-June 2017 did not constitute consideration for any "service" under s.65B(44) and were merely inter-company commercial settlements; no import of service arose and, applying POPS Rules, any performance-based activities occurred outside the taxable territory. The demand of service tax under RCM of Rs.36,77,40,000/- with interest and penalties was set aside on merits; extended limitation and penalties under ss.77-78 were also held unsustainable due to absence of suppression/intent and revenue-neutrality. A separate demand of Rs.1,16,11,766/- for Dec 2016 was remanded for verification of claimed tax payment/clerical omission in returns. Appeal partly allowed and partly remanded.
CESTAT held that remittances made by the appellant to overseas subsidiaries/licensees during April 2014-June 2017 did not constitute consideration for any "service" under s.65B(44) and were merely inter-company commercial settlements; no import of service arose and, applying POPS Rules, any performance-based activities occurred outside the taxable territory. The demand of service tax under RCM of Rs.36,77,40,000/- with interest and penalties was set aside on merits; extended limitation and penalties under ss.77-78 were also held unsustainable due to absence of suppression/intent and revenue-neutrality. A separate demand of Rs.1,16,11,766/- for Dec 2016 was remanded for verification of claimed tax payment/clerical omission in returns. Appeal partly allowed and partly remanded.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.