Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
Non-payment of service tax - aviation services - The Tribunal acknowledged that the appellant's Delhi unit had discharged its service tax liability for chartering aircraft and dry leasing arrangements. It observed that the income shown in the returns and balance sheets represented two separate activities, one being the supply of tangible goods by chartering aircraft and the other being dry leasing arrangements. The Tribunal concluded that the income from dry leasing arrangements, considered a deemed sale under Article 366(29A) of the Constitution, was excluded from the scope of service tax. - The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's argument regarding the vagueness of the show cause notice. - The Tribunal agreed with the appellant's contention regarding jurisdiction, since the services were provided outside the jurisdiction of the Raipur commissionerate and the tax was already discharged by the Delhi unit, the show cause notice lacked jurisdiction.
Non-payment of service tax - aviation services - The Tribunal acknowledged that the appellant's Delhi unit had discharged its service tax liability for chartering aircraft and dry leasing arrangements. It observed that the income shown in the returns and balance sheets represented two separate activities, one being the supply of tangible goods by chartering aircraft and the other being dry leasing arrangements. The Tribunal concluded that the income from dry leasing arrangements, considered a deemed sale under Article 366(29A) of the Constitution, was excluded from the scope of service tax. - The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's argument regarding the vagueness of the show cause notice. - The Tribunal agreed with the appellant's contention regarding jurisdiction, since the services were provided outside the jurisdiction of the Raipur commissionerate and the tax was already discharged by the Delhi unit, the show cause notice lacked jurisdiction.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
