Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
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 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
