Reopening of assessment cannot rest solely on an audit party's opinion; reassessment under Section 147/148 is impermissible and power of revision shou...
Tested party selection: functional analysis identified the least complex unit as the appropriate tested party, altering the transfer pricing adjustmen...
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 4809 
Join Channel 
