Limitation for final assessment under sections 144C and 153 treated jointly, resulting in quashing of timebarred assessment order and liberty to reviv...
Deductibility of settlement payments for securities law penalties and treatment of unexplained cash credits in share trading -- Tribunal upholds posit...
Threshold for allottee-initiated insolvency petitions in leasehold real estate upheld; petition admitted after possession letters deemed legally ineff...
Contravention of foreign exchange rules in crossborder diamond payments; appellate tribunal reduces one appellant's penalty for delay and proportional...
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.