Commercial vehicle depreciation, scientifically determined warranty provisions and exempt-income disallowances were resolved in favour of the taxpayer...
Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
HC quashed show cause notice due to unreasonable delay in adjudication spanning two decades. Department's internal CERA audit objection and conflicting views among Central Excise Officers led to prolonged inaction until January 2021. Court found petitioner had properly discharged service tax liability under works contract service per Section 65(95)(ZZZA) of Finance Act, 1994. Department's own Statement of Facts acknowledged disagreement with CERA audit findings. HC ordered refund of excess amounts deposited during investigation with 6% interest from payment date. Court affirmed petitioner's right to modify valuation method for service tax payment under Finance Act provisions.
HC quashed show cause notice due to unreasonable delay in adjudication spanning two decades. Department's internal CERA audit objection and conflicting views among Central Excise Officers led to prolonged inaction until January 2021. Court found petitioner had properly discharged service tax liability under works contract service per Section 65(95)(ZZZA) of Finance Act, 1994. Department's own Statement of Facts acknowledged disagreement with CERA audit findings. HC ordered refund of excess amounts deposited during investigation with 6% interest from payment date. Court affirmed petitioner's right to modify valuation method for service tax payment under Finance Act provisions.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
