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 sub-contractor was not eligible for exemption under S.No.12(d) of Notification 25/2012 for services provided to the principal contractor engaged in dam construction by the Government. Their activities of site formation, excavation, etc. did not strictly fall within "by way of construction" of dam under strict interpretation. Even if provided indirectly through the contractor, their services were not covered by the exemption notification. Their activities could not be considered works contract service eligible for exemption under S.No.29(h) due to lack of transfer of property. The extended period of limitation was rightly invoked as the appellant did not have a bona fide belief of non-taxability. The appeal against confirmed service tax demand was dismissed by CESTAT.
The appellant sub-contractor was not eligible for exemption under S.No.12(d) of Notification 25/2012 for services provided to the principal contractor engaged in dam construction by the Government. Their activities of site formation, excavation, etc. did not strictly fall within "by way of construction" of dam under strict interpretation. Even if provided indirectly through the contractor, their services were not covered by the exemption notification. Their activities could not be considered works contract service eligible for exemption under S.No.29(h) due to lack of transfer of property. The extended period of limitation was rightly invoked as the appellant did not have a bona fide belief of non-taxability. The appeal against confirmed service tax demand was dismissed by CESTAT.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
