Transfer-pricing treatment of ITeS margins excludes pass-through tax recoveries and separate delayed-receivables interest after working-capital adjust...
Capacity-utilisation adjustments under TNMM can neutralise substantiated COVID-related idle costs where underutilisation materially affects profitabil...
TNMM functional comparability requires excluding rice manufacturers from a pure Basmati rice trader's benchmark and recognising operating export recei...
Working-capital adjustment subsumes delayed-receivable effects in TNMM benchmarking of captive software-development services, avoiding separate notion...
Transfer-pricing comparability requires exclusion of financially illogical super-profit comparables and correction of unsupported annual-report and ma...
Charitable character assessment preserves Section 80G approval despite inclusive spiritual teachings and incidental religious expenditure within the s...
Penalty proceedings for cash-loan acceptance require assessment proceedings and recorded Assessing Officer satisfaction; absent these, the proceedings...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
A pure question of law bearing on taxability could be raised before the Tribunal even if not taken earlier, as Rule 10 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 permits additional grounds subject to hearing the other side. The service tax demand for April 2009 to June 2010 failed because it related to the same residential project already dealt with in the appellant's own case, where the earlier order had been set aside; the present demand had no surviving foundation and was also set aside. For July 2010 to March 2011, the demand under construction of complex service was unsustainable because the activity was composite in nature, as reflected by the abatement granted in the notice, and post-01.07.2010 such activity fell outside that category.
A pure question of law bearing on taxability could be raised before the Tribunal even if not taken earlier, as Rule 10 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 permits additional grounds subject to hearing the other side. The service tax demand for April 2009 to June 2010 failed because it related to the same residential project already dealt with in the appellant's own case, where the earlier order had been set aside; the present demand had no surviving foundation and was also set aside. For July 2010 to March 2011, the demand under construction of complex service was unsustainable because the activity was composite in nature, as reflected by the abatement granted in the notice, and post-01.07.2010 such activity fell outside that category.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.