Electronic WhatsApp evidence without authentication or independent corroboration cannot sustain an unexplained-investment addition based on third-part...
Mutual current-account transactions excluded from deemed dividend treatment where no fresh borrowing arose; unsupported unsecured-loan addition also f...
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 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
