Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires highway contract benchmarks to reflect operation, maintenance and transfer activities, requiring fresh be...
Grant-in-aid received under a government scheme for setting up and modernising a rice milling unit was treated as reimbursement of capital expenditure already incurred, not as consideration for any taxable service. The Tribunal found no service provider-recipient relationship, no evidence of any knowhow or intellectual property being created and transferred, and no contractual counter-obligation arising from the grant conditions. In the absence of consideration for a service, the amount was held outside service tax under the Finance Act, 1994. The demand for tax, interest and penalty was therefore set aside, following earlier decisions treating grant-in-aid or reimbursement, without anything over and above the grant, as non-taxable.
Grant-in-aid received under a government scheme for setting up and modernising a rice milling unit was treated as reimbursement of capital expenditure already incurred, not as consideration for any taxable service. The Tribunal found no service provider-recipient relationship, no evidence of any knowhow or intellectual property being created and transferred, and no contractual counter-obligation arising from the grant conditions. In the absence of consideration for a service, the amount was held outside service tax under the Finance Act, 1994. The demand for tax, interest and penalty was therefore set aside, following earlier decisions treating grant-in-aid or reimbursement, without anything over and above the grant, as non-taxable.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.