Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
Appellants providing long duration courses not approved by AICTE were exempted from service tax liability u/s 65(105)(zzc) of Finance Act, 1994 until Finance Act, 2011 removed the exemption. However, Finance Act, 2012 reinstated the exemption from 01.07.2012. Thus, appellants had no tax liability for the impugned period. The department wrongly alleged suppression of facts and invoked extended period of limitation despite absence of tax evasion or malafide intent. CESTAT set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal.
Appellants providing long duration courses not approved by AICTE were exempted from service tax liability u/s 65(105)(zzc) of Finance Act, 1994 until Finance Act, 2011 removed the exemption. However, Finance Act, 2012 reinstated the exemption from 01.07.2012. Thus, appellants had no tax liability for the impugned period. The department wrongly alleged suppression of facts and invoked extended period of limitation despite absence of tax evasion or malafide intent. CESTAT set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
