Learn about the MCA’s penalty on Thiyagarajan Parthasarathy for acquiring two DINs, a violation of Section 155 of the Companies Act, 2013.
Choosing the best health insurance in India can be daunting, but it’s an important decision that can help you save a lot of money in the long run. Here are some of the cheapest health insurance in India.
CESTAT Mumbai, in the case of Konkan Railway Corporation Limited v. Commissioner of Service Tax, ruled that the appellant, being a deemed railway company under the Indian Railways Act, is exempt from service tax liability. Gain insights into the ruling and its implications.
CESTAT Delhi held that order passed by Commissioner (A) is without jurisdiction as the appeal is filed by the department before the Commissioner (A) against an order the correctness of which stood decided against the department by the Delhi High Court.
CESTAT Mumbai held that coaching in the field of sports has been specifically excluded from the applicability of service tax vide the definition of commercial training or coaching centre under section 65(27) of the Finance Act 1994
ITAT Mumbai held that the moment the order of the TPO is barred by limitation and quashed the assessee ceases to be an eligible assessee. Hence the time limit for completion of the assessment reverts back to 21months. Final assessment order passed after that is barred by limitation.
ITAT Mumbai held that profit before depreciation (PBDIT) is to be considered as Profit Level Indicator (PLI) for transfer pricing analysis for benchmarking the international transaction.
Learn about the common mistakes made by companies and professionals in handling capital account transactions under FEMA (Foreign Exchange Management Act). Avoid non-compliance penalties by understanding the compliance guidelines for Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), Overseas Direct Investment (ODI), and External Commercial Borrowing (ECB) in India.
CESTAT Chennai held that branch office located in USA rendered the ‘onsite support service’ to its associated enterprise (AE) situated outside India and hence the same is not exigible to tax under the Finance Act, 1994 and accordingly all charges under the Finance Act are set aside.
Supreme Court held that where a statute contains both a general provision as well as a specific provision, the latter must prevail. Accordingly, Taxation Entry No.61 is relatable to ‘starch’ of any kind whereas Exemption Entry No.8 relates to products of ‘millet’. Hence, maize starch is covered by taxation entry and not by exemption entry.
