Purposive interpretation of residential house exemption: unregistered purchase agreement alone does not defeat relief, but investment must be verified...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3041 to 3060 of 96333 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The appellant received services classifiable as online information and database access or retrieval (OIDAR) services from outside India. As the recipient of such services, the appellant was held liable to pay service tax u/ss 66A and 68 of the Finance Act, 1994, read with Rule 2(1)(d)(iv) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, for the period from October 1, 2006, to March 2008, along with interest u/s 75 of the Act. The demand for service tax and interest was upheld. However, the penalties imposed u/ss 76 and 77 of the Act were set aside, as there was no suppression of facts, and the demand arose due to interpretation of legal provisions. The appeals were partially allowed to the extent of setting aside the penalties.
The appellant received services classifiable as online information and database access or retrieval (OIDAR) services from outside India. As the recipient of such services, the appellant was held liable to pay service tax u/ss 66A and 68 of the Finance Act, 1994, read with Rule 2(1)(d)(iv) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, for the period from October 1, 2006, to March 2008, along with interest u/s 75 of the Act. The demand for service tax and interest was upheld. However, the penalties imposed u/ss 76 and 77 of the Act were set aside, as there was no suppression of facts, and the demand arose due to interpretation of legal provisions. The appeals were partially allowed to the extent of setting aside the penalties.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
