Deductibility for charitable donations affirmed where payments to approved relief funds, even if CSR-driven, qualify under the donation deduction sche...
Mis-declaration in import descriptions must be deliberate to justify confiscation; withheld contemporaneous import documents invalidate value redeterm...
Liability for EPCG export shortfall: duty and interest sustained, but confiscation and penalties quashed where no fraud and causes beyond importer con...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
5321 to 5340 of 96100 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Deductions made from sub-contractors' bills were held to be consideration for taxable business support services, not mere reimbursement of CSR or labour welfare . The Tribunal found that the appellant produced no material to show that the recoveries represented actual expenditure incurred on behalf of the contractors' workmen, and the uniform percentage deduction from bill value indicated a quid pro quo for administrative and operational support. The plea of double taxation failed because the contractors' construction service and the appellant's separate support service were distinct taxable activities. The extended period of limitation was also upheld, as the recoveries were not disclosed in returns and the change in nomenclature after audit supported suppression of facts with intent to evade tax.
Deductions made from sub-contractors' bills were held to be consideration for taxable business support services, not mere reimbursement of CSR or labour welfare . The Tribunal found that the appellant produced no material to show that the recoveries represented actual expenditure incurred on behalf of the contractors' workmen, and the uniform percentage deduction from bill value indicated a quid pro quo for administrative and operational support. The plea of double taxation failed because the contractors' construction service and the appellant's separate support service were distinct taxable activities. The extended period of limitation was also upheld, as the recoveries were not disclosed in returns and the change in nomenclature after audit supported suppression of facts with intent to evade tax.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.