Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Limitation in oppression and mismanagement proceedings: prior knowledge of removal and dilution barred the challenge, with valuation directions upheld...
Insolvency professional agency governance rules amended to add nominee directors, tighten independent director eligibility, and regulate managing dire...
CESTAT held that retention charges from customers who cancelled reservations were not taxable under Section 66E(e) of the Finance Act as there was no agreement to tolerate an act. These amounts constituted damages/compensation rather than consideration for service. Similarly, amounts recovered from employees for subsidized canteen food were not taxable as providing such food was a legal obligation under labor laws, distinct from the restaurant's commercial operations. The Tribunal concluded that service tax could not be levied on either the retention charges or employee meal recoveries, and consequently dismissed the Revenue's appeal, rejecting associated interest and penalty demands.
CESTAT held that retention charges from customers who cancelled reservations were not taxable under Section 66E(e) of the Finance Act as there was no agreement to tolerate an act. These amounts constituted damages/compensation rather than consideration for service. Similarly, amounts recovered from employees for subsidized canteen food were not taxable as providing such food was a legal obligation under labor laws, distinct from the restaurant's commercial operations. The Tribunal concluded that service tax could not be levied on either the retention charges or employee meal recoveries, and consequently dismissed the Revenue's appeal, rejecting associated interest and penalty demands.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
