Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
The CESTAT held that the agreements between the appellant (a builder/developer) and prospective buyers for construction of residential units are to be treated as works contracts, which were not taxable prior to 1.7.2010. Even if classified as "construction of complex" services, abatement would apply, making them composite works contracts. The demand of service tax is time-barred and not sustainable. The penalty on the appellant firm's partner u/s 78A is also not sustainable since the main demand is set aside. The appeal is allowed, setting aside the impugned order.
The CESTAT held that the agreements between the appellant (a builder/developer) and prospective buyers for construction of residential units are to be treated as works contracts, which were not taxable prior to 1.7.2010. Even if classified as "construction of complex" services, abatement would apply, making them composite works contracts. The demand of service tax is time-barred and not sustainable. The penalty on the appellant firm's partner u/s 78A is also not sustainable since the main demand is set aside. The appeal is allowed, setting aside the impugned order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
