Retrospective application of beneficial circulars upheld, binding officers and granting post adjudication relief where adjudication occurred after cir...
Admissibility of Investigation Statements requires witness examination before the adjudicating authority; otherwise statements cannot sustain a penalt...
Transaction value and connected person treatment in excise valuation: proprietary concerns not inter connected undertakings, relief on valuation and c...
Appointment of Registrars as adjudicating officers under Companies Act reallocates territorial jurisdiction and sets appeal route to Regional Director...
Composite supply of drilling services and site specific chemicals characterised as composite supply; prior advance rulings set aside, tax rate left op...
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.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
