Certificate-of-origin verification procedure governs preferential customs benefits; denial without retroactive verification was set aside with consequ...
Disciplinary Committee jurisdiction and mandatory investigation requirements invalidated cancellation of an insolvency professional's registration and...
Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
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 4826 
Join Channel 
