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 ...
Appellants engaged in manufacturing dutiable goods and providing exempted trading services failed to maintain separate accounts for input services utilized in both activities as mandated u/r 6(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR). They paid service tax on royalty charges to overseas principals for both domestically manufactured and imported bottle closures. Department interpreted royalty as common input service requiring separate accounting and payment u/r 6(3) for exempted trading activity. Appellants discharged amount u/r 6(3) with interest and penalty before show cause notice (SCN). Original authority and Commissioner (Appeals) orders lacked examination of facts and appellants' compliance. Tribunal relied on BHEL-GE case, holding since appellants paid CENVAT credit for trading, it's construed as no credit taken, dropping demand. Commissioner (Appeals) directed redetermination of actual CENVAT payable u/r 6(3) after considering appellants' option u/r 6(3AA), without imposing penalty. Appeal partly allowed, setting aside penalty imposition.
Appellants engaged in manufacturing dutiable goods and providing exempted trading services failed to maintain separate accounts for input services utilized in both activities as mandated u/r 6(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR). They paid service tax on royalty charges to overseas principals for both domestically manufactured and imported bottle closures. Department interpreted royalty as common input service requiring separate accounting and payment u/r 6(3) for exempted trading activity. Appellants discharged amount u/r 6(3) with interest and penalty before show cause notice (SCN). Original authority and Commissioner (Appeals) orders lacked examination of facts and appellants' compliance. Tribunal relied on BHEL-GE case, holding since appellants paid CENVAT credit for trading, it's construed as no credit taken, dropping demand. Commissioner (Appeals) directed redetermination of actual CENVAT payable u/r 6(3) after considering appellants' option u/r 6(3AA), without imposing penalty. Appeal partly allowed, setting aside penalty imposition.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
