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" ?
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 4828 
Join Channel 
