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 a dispute over the classification of services as either Supply of Tangible Goods Service or not, regarding the activity of allowing clients to use railway rakes for goods transportation. It was held that the appellant lacked control over the rakes once handed to Indian Railways, making the service received by clients from Railways "Transportation of goods by Rail," not a supply of tangible goods service. The possession and control of the rakes by Indian Railways, not the appellant, precluded the activity from being taxable. The dispute period from 2008-09 to 2009-10 was deemed time-barred, with no fresh material supporting tax evasion. The demands were set aside on both merit and limitation grounds, and the appeal was allowed by CESTAT.
The case involved a dispute over the classification of services as either Supply of Tangible Goods Service or not, regarding the activity of allowing clients to use railway rakes for goods transportation. It was held that the appellant lacked control over the rakes once handed to Indian Railways, making the service received by clients from Railways "Transportation of goods by Rail," not a supply of tangible goods service. The possession and control of the rakes by Indian Railways, not the appellant, precluded the activity from being taxable. The dispute period from 2008-09 to 2009-10 was deemed time-barred, with no fresh material supporting tax evasion. The demands were set aside on both merit and limitation grounds, and the appeal was allowed by CESTAT.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
