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 ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
Threshold exemption excludes exempt services, while stamp-paper purchases avoid reverse charge; consequential service tax penalties were also set asid...
Employee conflict disclosures and investment restrictions expand with new recusal duties, post-employment limits, and compliance reporting requirement...
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 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
