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 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 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
