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 Appellant did not provide any "Business Auxiliary Services" to Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. as per Section 65(19) of the Finance Act, 1994. The demand was set aside as the Adjudicating Authority cannot travel beyond the scope of the show cause notice. The extended period of limitation was also set aside due to lack of evidence of suppression or willful misstatement by the Appellant. The appeal was allowed.
The CESTAT held that the Appellant did not provide any "Business Auxiliary Services" to Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. as per Section 65(19) of the Finance Act, 1994. The demand was set aside as the Adjudicating Authority cannot travel beyond the scope of the show cause notice. The extended period of limitation was also set aside due to lack of evidence of suppression or willful misstatement by the Appellant. The appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
