Permanent Establishment and Business Connection: foreign consultancy receipts not attributable where no fixed base or corporate veil piercing establis...
Limitation period commencement and procedural inquiry rules: identity-based limitation upheld; complaints by authorised public servants need not attra...
Renting services in the precincts of a religious place were considered for exemption under Notification No. 25/2012-ST, and the exemption claim was remanded to the Original Authority for fresh adjudication in accordance with law and the relevant Board circular. In valuation, the Tribunal held that where the Revenue does not show that service tax was separately collected, the gross consideration must be treated as cum-tax under Section 67(2), and the tax liability must be recomputed accordingly. On penalty and limitation, the absence of material showing suppression or intent to evade meant Section 78 penalty could not stand, and the demand could survive only for the normal period of limitation.
Renting services in the precincts of a religious place were considered for exemption under Notification No. 25/2012-ST, and the exemption claim was remanded to the Original Authority for fresh adjudication in accordance with law and the relevant Board circular. In valuation, the Tribunal held that where the Revenue does not show that service tax was separately collected, the gross consideration must be treated as cum-tax under Section 67(2), and the tax liability must be recomputed accordingly. On penalty and limitation, the absence of material showing suppression or intent to evade meant Section 78 penalty could not stand, and the demand could survive only for the normal period of limitation.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
