Assessment time-barred u/s 153 due to missing competent-authority reference for Singapore exchange of information; assessment disallowed as barred by ...
Imported menthol-scented sweet supari classification dispute: seizure quashed, release for home consumption subject to duty bond; bank guarantee refus...
CKD/SKD air-conditioner components classifiable with finished units by essential character; prior advance ruling extended three years, FTA benefits po...
Scope of judicial review under Article 226: supervisory, not appellate; factual reappraisal barred, challenge dismissed; insolvency professional dutie...
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.