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 the appeal, holding that the appellant was eligible for benefits under N/N.12/2003-ST for outdoor catering services. The tribunal found no legal prohibition against availing multiple notifications and rejected the adjudicating authority's denial based on VAT assessment methods. The extended period of limitation was deemed improper due to absence of willful suppression or intent to evade tax. The demand for differential service tax, interest, and penalty was set aside, with the tribunal emphasizing that documentary proof provided by the appellant was sufficient and no evidence suggested deliberate tax evasion.
CESTAT allowed the appeal, holding that the appellant was eligible for benefits under N/N.12/2003-ST for outdoor catering services. The tribunal found no legal prohibition against availing multiple notifications and rejected the adjudicating authority's denial based on VAT assessment methods. The extended period of limitation was deemed improper due to absence of willful suppression or intent to evade tax. The demand for differential service tax, interest, and penalty was set aside, with the tribunal emphasizing that documentary proof provided by the appellant was sufficient and no evidence suggested deliberate tax evasion.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
