Purposive interpretation of residential house exemption: unregistered purchase agreement alone does not defeat relief, but investment must be verified...
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 4814 
Join Channel 
