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 involved the taxability of health care services related to Stem Cell/Umbilical Cord Blood Banking. The issue was whether these services fell under the Negative List or the Mega Exemption Notification. The retrospective application of Notification No. 04/2014-ST was questioned, with reference to Circular No. 334/03/2014-TRU. The court held that retrospective application was not intended by the legislative amendment. The extended period of limitation was deemed applicable. The circular was found not to support retrospective effect. The decision of the Madras High Court in a similar case was followed. The appellant's inaction on registration and non-filing of returns showed willful default. The impugned order was upheld as legally sound, and the appeal was dismissed by CESTAT (Appellate Tribunal).
The case involved the taxability of health care services related to Stem Cell/Umbilical Cord Blood Banking. The issue was whether these services fell under the Negative List or the Mega Exemption Notification. The retrospective application of Notification No. 04/2014-ST was questioned, with reference to Circular No. 334/03/2014-TRU. The court held that retrospective application was not intended by the legislative amendment. The extended period of limitation was deemed applicable. The circular was found not to support retrospective effect. The decision of the Madras High Court in a similar case was followed. The appellant's inaction on registration and non-filing of returns showed willful default. The impugned order was upheld as legally sound, and the appeal was dismissed by CESTAT (Appellate Tribunal).
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
