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 involved a dispute regarding the levy of service tax on liquidated damages, security deposit, earnest money deposit, and retention money. The Appellate Tribunal held that these amounts do not constitute consideration for tolerating an act under u/s 66E(e) of the Finance Act. The Tribunal cited a previous case to support its decision. Consequently, the appellant was deemed not liable to pay service tax on the forfeited amounts. The impugned order was found to lack merit and was set aside, resulting in the appeal being allowed.
The case involved a dispute regarding the levy of service tax on liquidated damages, security deposit, earnest money deposit, and retention money. The Appellate Tribunal held that these amounts do not constitute consideration for tolerating an act under u/s 66E(e) of the Finance Act. The Tribunal cited a previous case to support its decision. Consequently, the appellant was deemed not liable to pay service tax on the forfeited amounts. The impugned order was found to lack merit and was set aside, resulting in the appeal being allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4881 
