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 CESTAT held that the marketing support services provided by the Appellants to Nokia Corporation Finland qualified as export of services, as the benefits accrued outside India. The taxable event is the rendition of service, not the payment date. Hence, service tax was rightly paid at 10.12%, the rate prevailing when services were rendered. The Appellants were eligible for abatement under Notification No. 1/2006-ST for turnkey projects involving supply of goods and services. The extended period of limitation was wrongly invoked by the Department, as it failed to substantiate allegations of willful suppression of facts by the Appellants. Consequently, the service tax demand was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the Appellants.
The CESTAT held that the marketing support services provided by the Appellants to Nokia Corporation Finland qualified as export of services, as the benefits accrued outside India. The taxable event is the rendition of service, not the payment date. Hence, service tax was rightly paid at 10.12%, the rate prevailing when services were rendered. The Appellants were eligible for abatement under Notification No. 1/2006-ST for turnkey projects involving supply of goods and services. The extended period of limitation was wrongly invoked by the Department, as it failed to substantiate allegations of willful suppression of facts by the Appellants. Consequently, the service tax demand was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the Appellants.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4780
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
