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...
The appellant's activity of subscription and redemption of mutual fund units cannot be considered as trading of securities, thus not qualifying as an exempted service u/s 66D(e) of the Finance Act. Additionally, investment in mutual funds does not constitute a 'service' u/s 65B(44) of the Finance Act, as there is no service provider rendering a service to a recipient for consideration. Consequently, proportionate reversal of CENVAT credit availed on common input services was not required. The extended period of limitation invoked by the department was unjustified, as the responsibility to scrutinize returns and make correct assessments lies with the officer. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
The appellant's activity of subscription and redemption of mutual fund units cannot be considered as trading of securities, thus not qualifying as an exempted service u/s 66D(e) of the Finance Act. Additionally, investment in mutual funds does not constitute a 'service' u/s 65B(44) of the Finance Act, as there is no service provider rendering a service to a recipient for consideration. Consequently, proportionate reversal of CENVAT credit availed on common input services was not required. The extended period of limitation invoked by the department was unjustified, as the responsibility to scrutinize returns and make correct assessments lies with the officer. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
