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 4827
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
141 to 160 of 96536 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Non-filing of mandatory ST-3 returns despite registration, coupled with non-response to departmental enquiries, was held to constitute willful suppression with intent to evade service tax on taxable services under the Finance Act, 1994, justifying demand on differential receipts. Consequently, the extended limitation under the proviso to Section 73(1) was upheld, and the challenge on limitation failed. Since the demand was sustained, interest under Section 75 was also sustained. Penalty under Section 78 was upheld as a corollary to established suppression with intent to evade, and late fee under Rule 7C and penalty under Section 77(1)(c) were upheld for statutory non-compliance and failure to furnish information. Appeal dismissed. - CESTAT
Non-filing of mandatory ST-3 returns despite registration, coupled with non-response to departmental enquiries, was held to constitute willful suppression with intent to evade service tax on taxable services under the Finance Act, 1994, justifying demand on differential receipts. Consequently, the extended limitation under the proviso to Section 73(1) was upheld, and the challenge on limitation failed. Since the demand was sustained, interest under Section 75 was also sustained. Penalty under Section 78 was upheld as a corollary to established suppression with intent to evade, and late fee under Rule 7C and penalty under Section 77(1)(c) were upheld for statutory non-compliance and failure to furnish information. Appeal dismissed. - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.