Infrastructure-development deduction remains available to EPC contractors when substantive statutory conditions outweigh contractor labels in agreemen...
Explained Investment Sources: documented gifts and traceable salary savings supported deletion of additions for property and mutual-fund SIP investmen...
Internal comparable pricing supports arm's-length interest on compulsorily convertible debentures, preventing their recharacterisation as equity for t...
Nominee director protection shields independent financial-institution appointees from criminal liability where they lack involvement in deposit defaul...
Respondent declared miscellaneous income of Rs. 6 crores to IT Department. Department proposed service tax demand and penalty u/s 78(1) based on director's statement that income was from construction services. CESTAT held demand unsustainable as statement alone inadmissible without corroborative evidence. Department failed to produce evidence that income was from taxable services. Demand based on assumptions and presumptions. Original authority rightly dropped demand for lack of evidence. Department's appeal dismissed by CESTAT.
Respondent declared miscellaneous income of Rs. 6 crores to IT Department. Department proposed service tax demand and penalty u/s 78(1) based on director's statement that income was from construction services. CESTAT held demand unsustainable as statement alone inadmissible without corroborative evidence. Department failed to produce evidence that income was from taxable services. Demand based on assumptions and presumptions. Original authority rightly dropped demand for lack of evidence. Department's appeal dismissed by CESTAT.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4881 
