Penny-stock additions require transaction-specific evidence; general investigation material alone cannot establish undisclosed income or accommodation...
Transfer pricing comparability prioritises reliable external CUPs and foreign-currency LIBOR benchmarks for exports, borrowings and delayed receivable...
Section 153C satisfaction and seized electronic records sustained unexplained-investment addition, subject to proportionate ownership-share verificati...
CESTAT held that the consortium's services constituted works contract service under Section 65A of the Finance Act, 1994. The tribunal rejected exemption claims under Notifications 11/2010-ST, 32/2010-ST, and 45/2010-ST, finding they did not apply to EPC contract services. The extended period of limitation was not invoked due to bonafide belief and interpretational confusion. Penalties were set aside considering the appellant's government undertaking status. The appeal was partly allowed, upholding service tax classification while providing relief on limitation and penalties.
CESTAT held that the consortium's services constituted works contract service under Section 65A of the Finance Act, 1994. The tribunal rejected exemption claims under Notifications 11/2010-ST, 32/2010-ST, and 45/2010-ST, finding they did not apply to EPC contract services. The extended period of limitation was not invoked due to bonafide belief and interpretational confusion. Penalties were set aside considering the appellant's government undertaking status. The appeal was partly allowed, upholding service tax classification while providing relief on limitation and penalties.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
