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" ?
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.