Commercial vehicle depreciation, scientifically determined warranty provisions and exempt-income disallowances were resolved in favour of the taxpayer...
Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
Extended period of limitation for levying service tax on Goods Transport Agency (GTA) services. The key points are: The revenue department issued a show cause notice based on 26AS statement from the Income Tax Department, invoking the extended period. However, the Tribunal consistently holds that the extended period cannot be invoked when the case is made solely based on 26AS statements, especially when no ingredients for invoking the extended period are present. In this case, the appellants are GTA service providers, and the service recipients are liable to pay service tax under the Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM). The department failed to provide evidence that the appellants rendered taxable services to persons not covered under RCM, requiring the appellants to pay the tax themselves. Therefore, the benefit of doubt must be given to the appellants. The extended period cannot be invoked, and the appeal succeeds on the limitation ground.
Extended period of limitation for levying service tax on Goods Transport Agency (GTA) services. The key points are: The revenue department issued a show cause notice based on 26AS statement from the Income Tax Department, invoking the extended period. However, the Tribunal consistently holds that the extended period cannot be invoked when the case is made solely based on 26AS statements, especially when no ingredients for invoking the extended period are present. In this case, the appellants are GTA service providers, and the service recipients are liable to pay service tax under the Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM). The department failed to provide evidence that the appellants rendered taxable services to persons not covered under RCM, requiring the appellants to pay the tax themselves. Therefore, the benefit of doubt must be given to the appellants. The extended period cannot be invoked, and the appeal succeeds on the limitation ground.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
