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" ?
Reverse charge mechanism for service tax distinguishes the recipients liability from the providers: where law makes the service recipient solely liable to pay, the provider is not answerable for unpaid tax. The Revenue bears the burden to prove fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts before invoking the extended period of limitation; absent such proof and where the provider had a bona fide belief that liability rested on the recipient, an extended-period demand against the provider cannot be sustained. Result: impugned extended-period demand set aside and appeal allowed.
Reverse charge mechanism for service tax distinguishes the recipients liability from the providers: where law makes the service recipient solely liable to pay, the provider is not answerable for unpaid tax. The Revenue bears the burden to prove fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts before invoking the extended period of limitation; absent such proof and where the provider had a bona fide belief that liability rested on the recipient, an extended-period demand against the provider cannot be sustained. Result: impugned extended-period demand set aside and appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.