International transaction characterisation of domestic divestment of support services business rejected; transaction between resident associated enter...
Minimum Import Price restrictions for Black Pepper, Areca-nuts and Apples upheld; procedural laying failure not fatal, notifications to be placed befo...
Transaction value between related persons requires market-equivalent pricing; importer must prove declared value mirrors ordinary international trade ...
Page of 4814
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
6841 to 6860 of 96262 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Whether appellants' receipts constituted taxable "service" or fell within exemptions: Tribunal found generally that, for lack of mandatory documentary proof (agreements, payment particulars, bank statements), the appellant's activities fell within taxable work-contract/service definitions under Section 65B, making them liable to service tax - outcome: liability sustained. Whether extended limitation (proviso to s.73(1)) could be invoked for a specific receipt: on the particular transaction, produced evidence and bona fide belief (certificates, corrected 26AS) established the receipt as supply of goods and/or an exempt service, so invoking the extended period was not justified - outcome: demand on that receipt not confirmed. - CESTAT
Whether appellants' receipts constituted taxable "service" or fell within exemptions: Tribunal found generally that, for lack of mandatory documentary proof (agreements, payment particulars, bank statements), the appellant's activities fell within taxable work-contract/service definitions under Section 65B, making them liable to service tax - outcome: liability sustained. Whether extended limitation (proviso to s.73(1)) could be invoked for a specific receipt: on the particular transaction, produced evidence and bona fide belief (certificates, corrected 26AS) established the receipt as supply of goods and/or an exempt service, so invoking the extended period was not justified - outcome: demand on that receipt not confirmed. - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.