Faceless assessment and registration procedures are updated through electronic communication, revised recovery rules, extended deadlines, and replacem...
Risk-based selective vessel boarding requires accurate declarations and preserves master and agent liability where physical inspections are not select...
Permanent-establishment reassessment cannot revisit scrutinised disclosures; extended reopening fails without undisclosed material facts and within st...
Whether the compensation received by the appellant for cancellation of agreements to purchase land constitutes a taxable service u/s 66E(e) of the Finance Act, 1994. The key points are: The compensation received for breach of contract does not qualify as consideration for rendering a declared service u/s 66E(e). The act of entering into a cancellation agreement is not an act of rendering a taxable service, and any amount received as damages cannot be treated as taxable value. The Circular dated 03.08.2022 clarifies that there must be an express or implied agreement to do or abstain from an act against consideration for a taxable supply to exist. The decision aligns with the Supreme Court's ruling in Union of India vs. Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. Since the appellant did not render any taxable service, the extended period invoked for alleged evasion is also incorrect. Consequently, the order under challenge is set aside, and the appeal is allowed.
Whether the compensation received by the appellant for cancellation of agreements to purchase land constitutes a taxable service u/s 66E(e) of the Finance Act, 1994. The key points are: The compensation received for breach of contract does not qualify as consideration for rendering a declared service u/s 66E(e). The act of entering into a cancellation agreement is not an act of rendering a taxable service, and any amount received as damages cannot be treated as taxable value. The Circular dated 03.08.2022 clarifies that there must be an express or implied agreement to do or abstain from an act against consideration for a taxable supply to exist. The decision aligns with the Supreme Court's ruling in Union of India vs. Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. Since the appellant did not render any taxable service, the extended period invoked for alleged evasion is also incorrect. Consequently, the order under challenge is set aside, and the appeal is allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
