Statutory transfer formalities invalidated alleged share and property transfers, while retrospective record manipulation constituted oppression and mi...
Provisional attachment of laundered funds and equivalent-value property sustained, with statutory protection limited to pension, gratuity and providen...
Insolvency moratorium does not shield company officers from cheque dishonour prosecution for liability arising before corporate insolvency proceedings...
Advance-ruling mechanism governs pending GST classification, exemption and taxability disputes, limiting writ review once the specialised forum functi...
Page of 4788
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
581 to 600 of 95752 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CESTAT adjudicated a service tax dispute involving works contract services for construction projects. The tribunal ruled that construction services for educational institutions and government buildings do not constitute taxable works contract services primarily for commercial purposes. Construction of center-medians on highways was deemed a works contract "in respect of roads" and thus exempt from service tax. The tribunal found the service tax demand time-barred, determining no willful suppression of facts by the appellant. The extended limitation period was incorrectly invoked, and the entire service tax demand was set aside. Appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant, effectively nullifying the tax assessment.
CESTAT adjudicated a service tax dispute involving works contract services for construction projects. The tribunal ruled that construction services for educational institutions and government buildings do not constitute taxable works contract services primarily for commercial purposes. Construction of center-medians on highways was deemed a works contract "in respect of roads" and thus exempt from service tax. The tribunal found the service tax demand time-barred, determining no willful suppression of facts by the appellant. The extended limitation period was incorrectly invoked, and the entire service tax demand was set aside. Appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant, effectively nullifying the tax assessment.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.