Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
Page of 4824
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
601 to 620 of 96463 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Refund of service tax on composite works contracts was rejected because the appellant failed to prove that the tax burden had not been passed on, as the contract price was inclusive of tax and the customer had deducted part of the tax from payments. The Tribunal also found that the development and construction activities involved transfer of property in goods and therefore fell within works contract service, making the tax payment and corresponding refund claim untenable. It further reiterated that refund proceedings cannot be used to reopen unchallenged self-assessments or disturb assessments that have attained finality. The rejection of the refund claim was upheld.
Refund of service tax on composite works contracts was rejected because the appellant failed to prove that the tax burden had not been passed on, as the contract price was inclusive of tax and the customer had deducted part of the tax from payments. The Tribunal also found that the development and construction activities involved transfer of property in goods and therefore fell within works contract service, making the tax payment and corresponding refund claim untenable. It further reiterated that refund proceedings cannot be used to reopen unchallenged self-assessments or disturb assessments that have attained finality. The rejection of the refund claim was upheld.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.