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...
CESTAT allowed refund claims for service tax wrongly collected and paid on 'construction of complex' services during September 2008 to May 2010. Following KVR Construction precedent, the tribunal held that amounts paid under mistaken notion cannot be classified as service tax when no legal obligation existed. The limitation period under Section 11B of Central Excise Act 1944 was deemed inapplicable as the payment did not constitute legitimate service tax. The tribunal overturned the lower authorities' rejection of refund claims based on time limitation, affirming that service tax was not leviable on construction services prior to July 1, 2010, per the explanation to Section 65(105)(zza) of Finance Act, 1994.
CESTAT allowed refund claims for service tax wrongly collected and paid on 'construction of complex' services during September 2008 to May 2010. Following KVR Construction precedent, the tribunal held that amounts paid under mistaken notion cannot be classified as service tax when no legal obligation existed. The limitation period under Section 11B of Central Excise Act 1944 was deemed inapplicable as the payment did not constitute legitimate service tax. The tribunal overturned the lower authorities' rejection of refund claims based on time limitation, affirming that service tax was not leviable on construction services prior to July 1, 2010, per the explanation to Section 65(105)(zza) of Finance Act, 1994.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
