Embezzlement losses in charitable institutions remain allowable when misappropriation is established, irrecoverable, and not a specified-person benefi...
National long-distance undertaking status supports deduction where separately licensed infrastructure, resources, revenue, and expenditure establish c...
Agency reimbursement income follows contractual deposit-liability computation, while pending deposit collections do not constitute deemed-dividend loa...
Membership-consent thresholds for oppression petitions are satisfied by unchallenged voter-list consents, while unsupported forgery claims require pro...
The case before CESTAT Chandigarh involved the levy of service tax on "liquidated damages in contracts" for penalty/late delivery charges, under section 66E (e) of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant, a Central Government Public Sector Undertaking, challenged the tax liability. The Tribunal referred to a recent circular by the Department of Revenue stating no liability for service tax/GST on such damages. Previous Tribunal decisions supported the appellant's position that these damages are not subject to service tax. CESTAT held the impugned order as legally unsustainable and allowed the appeal, providing consequential relief as per law.
The case before CESTAT Chandigarh involved the levy of service tax on "liquidated damages in contracts" for penalty/late delivery charges, under section 66E (e) of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant, a Central Government Public Sector Undertaking, challenged the tax liability. The Tribunal referred to a recent circular by the Department of Revenue stating no liability for service tax/GST on such damages. Previous Tribunal decisions supported the appellant's position that these damages are not subject to service tax. CESTAT held the impugned order as legally unsustainable and allowed the appeal, providing consequential relief as per law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4881 
