Form 26AS evidence requires successor-entity accounting verification after business transfer, while invoice-supported related-party advertising expend...
Money-laundering judgment timing requires awaiting the scheduled-offence decision despite continuation of the underlying trial where outcomes directly...
Accredited investor eligibility expands through securities-market exposure, while alternative investment fund disputes require prescribed resolution a...
Customs Assessment Portal centralises classification and valuation guidance to support consistent, transparent and informed compliance across stakehol...
Page of 4918
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
101 to 120 of 98359 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Letting out shops/premises for shops, canteens, banks, etc. is liable to service tax as it is not directly related to agriculture and agricultural produce. The appellant is liable to pay service tax for the period 1.10.2012 to 31.03.2014 as the activities undertaken were for furtherance of business or commerce, not covered under the Negative List of Section 66D. The exemption under Notification No. 33/2012-ST is not applicable as the aggregate value of taxable services rendered by the appellant from one or more premises exceeded Rs.10 lakhs in the preceding financial years, which is a mandatory condition. The Apex Court has held that exemption notifications must be construed strictly, and all conditions must be fulfilled to claim the benefit. The Commissioner's finding that the appellant's total receipts exceeded the threshold limit for exemption is upheld. The appeal is dismissed.
Letting out shops/premises for shops, canteens, banks, etc. is liable to service tax as it is not directly related to agriculture and agricultural produce. The appellant is liable to pay service tax for the period 1.10.2012 to 31.03.2014 as the activities undertaken were for furtherance of business or commerce, not covered under the Negative List of Section 66D. The exemption under Notification No. 33/2012-ST is not applicable as the aggregate value of taxable services rendered by the appellant from one or more premises exceeded Rs.10 lakhs in the preceding financial years, which is a mandatory condition. The Apex Court has held that exemption notifications must be construed strictly, and all conditions must be fulfilled to claim the benefit. The Commissioner's finding that the appellant's total receipts exceeded the threshold limit for exemption is upheld. The appeal is dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4918 
