Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
Governmental authority status supports construction-service exemption, while pre-cutoff contract and stamp-duty compliance requires verification on re...
Page of 4826
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
81 to 100 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" ?
The dominant issue was whether the Notification dated 20.01.2016 and the amendment inserting the words "other than facilities provided in intensive care unit (ICU)" in the luxury-tax charging provision were merely clarificatory/declaratory, thereby operating retrospectively. The court held that where an amendment elucidates an existing levy, it relates back to the original provision and cannot be treated as prospective. Since the pre-amendment levy covered charges for hospital rooms and allied facilities, the amendment clarified that charges collected from patients admitted in ICU were never intended to be taxed, warranting retroactive exemption for prior assessment years. Consequently, the assessment order and demand notices levying luxury tax on ICU-related charges were quashed and the petition was allowed. - HC
The dominant issue was whether the Notification dated 20.01.2016 and the amendment inserting the words "other than facilities provided in intensive care unit (ICU)" in the luxury-tax charging provision were merely clarificatory/declaratory, thereby operating retrospectively. The court held that where an amendment elucidates an existing levy, it relates back to the original provision and cannot be treated as prospective. Since the pre-amendment levy covered charges for hospital rooms and allied facilities, the amendment clarified that charges collected from patients admitted in ICU were never intended to be taxed, warranting retroactive exemption for prior assessment years. Consequently, the assessment order and demand notices levying luxury tax on ICU-related charges were quashed and the petition was allowed. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4826 
Join Channel 
