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 appellant did not collect any amount representing service tax from sub-agents/customers. The amount recovered was the service tax already paid by the appellant on the commission retained by the sub-agents. No service tax was actually collected payable u/s 73A(2). The revenue wrongly alleged illegal collection of service tax from sub-agents, ignoring that commission was shared with sub-agents, and the tax burden was accordingly shared. Demanding service tax again on the sub-agents' commission portion would amount to double taxation. The CESTAT set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal.
The CESTAT held that the appellant did not collect any amount representing service tax from sub-agents/customers. The amount recovered was the service tax already paid by the appellant on the commission retained by the sub-agents. No service tax was actually collected payable u/s 73A(2). The revenue wrongly alleged illegal collection of service tax from sub-agents, ignoring that commission was shared with sub-agents, and the tax burden was accordingly shared. Demanding service tax again on the sub-agents' commission portion would amount to double taxation. The CESTAT set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
