Cross-border payments for marketing and support services: tribunal limits unsubstantiated reimbursed expenses and remits provision accounting for veri...
Page of 4826
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
6901 to 6920 of 96510 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Retail sale value of franchisor's products was not excludible from the taxable value of beauty parlour services because the assessee failed to produce contemporaneous invoices/bills in the contractually prescribed manner and produced no VAT registration or VAT payment evidence, defeating the plea of independent sale; consequently, service tax demand was sustained. CENVAT credit was held inadmissible as it was never taken during the relevant period/adjudication and, in any event, cannot be availed beyond the prescribed time-limit as settled by binding Larger Bench law; consequently, credit benefit was denied. Extended limitation was upheld due to suppression with intent to evade, evidenced by non-payment and non-filing of returns despite registration; consequently, demand, interest, and Section 77(2) penalty were upheld, with Section 78 penalty modified, and the appeal dismissed - CESTAT
Retail sale value of franchisor's products was not excludible from the taxable value of beauty parlour services because the assessee failed to produce contemporaneous invoices/bills in the contractually prescribed manner and produced no VAT registration or VAT payment evidence, defeating the plea of independent sale; consequently, service tax demand was sustained. CENVAT credit was held inadmissible as it was never taken during the relevant period/adjudication and, in any event, cannot be availed beyond the prescribed time-limit as settled by binding Larger Bench law; consequently, credit benefit was denied. Extended limitation was upheld due to suppression with intent to evade, evidenced by non-payment and non-filing of returns despite registration; consequently, demand, interest, and Section 77(2) penalty were upheld, with Section 78 penalty modified, and the appeal dismissed - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4826 
Join Channel 
