Mark-to-Market losses on principal-protected debentures are deductible as business expenditure when the obligation is crystallized under mercantile ac...
Deferred Payment of Customs Duty extended to Eligible Manufacturer Importers with electronic registration and ICEGATE authentication for conditional c...
Tariff classification determines GST schedule and rate; beverages in Schedule III attract the higher rate, tea extracts and syrups in Schedule I attra...
Fraudulent trading requires cogent evidence of intent to defraud; ordinary-course payments protected, except post-insolvency withdrawals must be resto...
Page of 4819
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
5821 to 5840 of 96365 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Whether services rendered were taxable: Tribunal held that training for competitive exams, given by an organization operating for bona fide charitable purposes and registered under s.12AA, did not constitute "commercial coaching" because receipts were applied to charitable upliftment and revenue did not dispute charitable activities - training not taxable. Renting of immovable property was not held to be a taxable service where absence of fixed tariff, use of premises for community programmes, and application of receipts to charitable objects negated a commercial renting service - renting not taxable. Miscellaneous receipts lacked cogent evidentiary basis to levy duty and were shown to fund charity - not taxable. Invocation of extended limitation was unsustainable in absence of malafide or suppression. Impugned order quashed and appeal allowed. - CESTAT
Whether services rendered were taxable: Tribunal held that training for competitive exams, given by an organization operating for bona fide charitable purposes and registered under s.12AA, did not constitute "commercial coaching" because receipts were applied to charitable upliftment and revenue did not dispute charitable activities - training not taxable. Renting of immovable property was not held to be a taxable service where absence of fixed tariff, use of premises for community programmes, and application of receipts to charitable objects negated a commercial renting service - renting not taxable. Miscellaneous receipts lacked cogent evidentiary basis to levy duty and were shown to fund charity - not taxable. Invocation of extended limitation was unsustainable in absence of malafide or suppression. Impugned order quashed and appeal allowed. - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.