Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Refund of Service Tax - Service Tax paid for construction of residential complex - because of availability of 13 floors, learned Commissioner (Appeals) had failed to reach at a conclusion that the complex had less than 12 residential units to admit refund as the said was not taxable. However, going by the Architect certificate at annexure 3, floor plan referred above and the full occupation certificate issued by the Executive Engineer (building proposal) of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai dated 02.08.2013 would clearly indicate that the complex comprised of 9 residential units, taking each duplex to be counted as one unit. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to get the refund sought for. - AT
Refund of Service Tax - Service Tax paid for construction of residential complex - because of availability of 13 floors, learned Commissioner (Appeals) had failed to reach at a conclusion that the complex had less than 12 residential units to admit refund as the said was not taxable. However, going by the Architect certificate at annexure 3, floor plan referred above and the full occupation certificate issued by the Executive Engineer (building proposal) of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai dated 02.08.2013 would clearly indicate that the complex comprised of 9 residential units, taking each duplex to be counted as one unit. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to get the refund sought for. - AT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.