Transfer pricing comparables and adjustments: Tribunal revisits loss-maker status, segmental comparability, working capital relief, and risk allocatio...
Business expenditure disallowance failed where commission, related-party salary and promotion payments were supported by records and inquiry was inade...
Dispute concerns proper interest computation on delayed service tax where the question was which entry in Notification No.13/2016 applies; tribunal held that, because the appellant used cum-tax pricing and did not segregate tax from gross receipts, the liability is a plain short-payment covered by serial no.2 of the Notification rather than serial no.1, and the interest must be calculated accordingly. The demand was not framed under the special provision for reassessment and was issued under the general interest provision. Having paid tax, most interest and a reduced penalty within 30 days, the appellant qualified for the mitigation under the penalty provision and the impugned demand was set aside and appeal allowed.
Dispute concerns proper interest computation on delayed service tax where the question was which entry in Notification No.13/2016 applies; tribunal held that, because the appellant used cum-tax pricing and did not segregate tax from gross receipts, the liability is a plain short-payment covered by serial no.2 of the Notification rather than serial no.1, and the interest must be calculated accordingly. The demand was not framed under the special provision for reassessment and was issued under the general interest provision. Having paid tax, most interest and a reduced penalty within 30 days, the appellant qualified for the mitigation under the penalty provision and the impugned demand was set aside and appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
