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 4827
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
141 to 160 of 96536 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Equipment-hiring arrangements were treated as a transfer of the right to use goods because effective control and possession of the equipment passed to customers during the contract period. The Tribunal relied on the contractual allocation of custody, risk, indemnity and restrictions on the supplier's use or withdrawal of the equipment, and held that maintenance, consumables or provision of operators did not negate transfer of control where operational liability rested with the customer. VAT payment was also treated as a relevant indicator of deemed sale. The transactions therefore fell outside service tax as supply of tangible goods for use, and the related demands, interest and penalties were set aside.
Equipment-hiring arrangements were treated as a transfer of the right to use goods because effective control and possession of the equipment passed to customers during the contract period. The Tribunal relied on the contractual allocation of custody, risk, indemnity and restrictions on the supplier's use or withdrawal of the equipment, and held that maintenance, consumables or provision of operators did not negate transfer of control where operational liability rested with the customer. VAT payment was also treated as a relevant indicator of deemed sale. The transactions therefore fell outside service tax as supply of tangible goods for use, and the related demands, interest and penalties were set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.