Scope of intermediary status for data hosting services: tribunal finds provider not intermediary, services exported and not taxable, limited remand on...
CENVAT credit availability after omission of Rule 12B in textiles confirmed; late addendum to SCN introducing new grounds held time-barred and invalid...
Export of Wheat Flour and related products subject to online allocation, eligibility criteria, non-transferable six-month authorisations and reporting...
Straight-line lease rental accounting change results in penalty quashed where disclosed accounts and bona fide arguable accounting interpretation exis...
Page of 4823
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
7141 to 7160 of 96456 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Upfront fee and excess spread income arising from securitization/sell-down of future receivables were held to be profits/interest from sale of receivables, with no underlying "service" element, and therefore not exigible to service tax under Business Support Service; the Department's challenge to dropping of these demands was not maintainable. Collection efficiency fee and sell-down servicing fee were accepted as taxable, and interest on delayed payment was upheld; however, this did not sustain the Revenue's appeal on merits. Alleged suppression was rejected since the material facts were already within departmental knowledge from an earlier notice, making invocation of the extended limitation period unjustified. Revenue's appeal was dismissed. - CESTAT
Upfront fee and excess spread income arising from securitization/sell-down of future receivables were held to be profits/interest from sale of receivables, with no underlying "service" element, and therefore not exigible to service tax under Business Support Service; the Department's challenge to dropping of these demands was not maintainable. Collection efficiency fee and sell-down servicing fee were accepted as taxable, and interest on delayed payment was upheld; however, this did not sustain the Revenue's appeal on merits. Alleged suppression was rejected since the material facts were already within departmental knowledge from an earlier notice, making invocation of the extended limitation period unjustified. Revenue's appeal was dismissed. - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.