Commercial vehicle depreciation, scientifically determined warranty provisions and exempt-income disallowances were resolved in favour of the taxpayer...
Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
Remuneration paid to whole-time directors was treated as outside the service tax net because the employment agreements, express employer-employee clauses, TDS under section 192, and Form 16 supported an employee relationship; variable or profit-linked pay did not change that character, so the demand, interest and penalties on that remuneration failed. Remuneration paid to non-whole-time directors was also not taxable on the facts shown, because the appellant had produced ST-3 returns indicating tax was discharged by its Bhubaneswar office, the Revenue did not rebut that evidence, and no centralized registration existed to justify a demand from the Salem office. Derivative demands based on an earlier set-aside notice, without independent evidence, could not survive, so the common orders were set aside in entirety.
Remuneration paid to whole-time directors was treated as outside the service tax net because the employment agreements, express employer-employee clauses, TDS under section 192, and Form 16 supported an employee relationship; variable or profit-linked pay did not change that character, so the demand, interest and penalties on that remuneration failed. Remuneration paid to non-whole-time directors was also not taxable on the facts shown, because the appellant had produced ST-3 returns indicating tax was discharged by its Bhubaneswar office, the Revenue did not rebut that evidence, and no centralized registration existed to justify a demand from the Salem office. Derivative demands based on an earlier set-aside notice, without independent evidence, could not survive, so the common orders were set aside in entirety.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4807
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
