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...
The CESTAT Allahabad Appellate Tribunal ruled in a case involving the demand of service tax for services rendered by a non-resident from a country outside India related to the issuance of Foreign Currency Convertible Bonds (FCCB) falling under banking and financial services. The appellant had paid the service tax under protest and deposited the amount demanded during the investigation. The tribunal held that the demand of service tax against the appellant was dropped, entitling them to a refund of the amount paid along with interest. The appellant had taken CENVAT credit of the amount deposited and distributed it to their manufacturing units as they were registered as an input service distributor. The tribunal found no reason to disallow the distribution of the credit, as the service tax was deemed not payable. The tribunal also noted that the show cause notice and impugned order did not cite any legal provisions for the recovery of CENVAT credit, rendering the recovery order invalid.
The CESTAT Allahabad Appellate Tribunal ruled in a case involving the demand of service tax for services rendered by a non-resident from a country outside India related to the issuance of Foreign Currency Convertible Bonds (FCCB) falling under banking and financial services. The appellant had paid the service tax under protest and deposited the amount demanded during the investigation. The tribunal held that the demand of service tax against the appellant was dropped, entitling them to a refund of the amount paid along with interest. The appellant had taken CENVAT credit of the amount deposited and distributed it to their manufacturing units as they were registered as an input service distributor. The tribunal found no reason to disallow the distribution of the credit, as the service tax was deemed not payable. The tribunal also noted that the show cause notice and impugned order did not cite any legal provisions for the recovery of CENVAT credit, rendering the recovery order invalid.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4790
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
