Infrastructure-development deduction remains available to EPC contractors when substantive statutory conditions outweigh contractor labels in agreemen...
Explained Investment Sources: documented gifts and traceable salary savings supported deletion of additions for property and mutual-fund SIP investmen...
Internal comparable pricing supports arm's-length interest on compulsorily convertible debentures, preventing their recharacterisation as equity for t...
Nominee director protection shields independent financial-institution appointees from criminal liability where they lack involvement in deposit defaul...
HC determined that the service tax demand against the government contractor was invalid. The court found the services were exempted under Mega Exemption Notification No. 25/2012, and the respondent could not invoke the extended limitation period under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994. The show cause notice was time-barred, and there was no evidence of fraud or intentional tax evasion. The court quashed the show cause notice and the consequent demand order, effectively ruling in favor of the petitioner and dismissing the tax liability.
HC determined that the service tax demand against the government contractor was invalid. The court found the services were exempted under Mega Exemption Notification No. 25/2012, and the respondent could not invoke the extended limitation period under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994. The show cause notice was time-barred, and there was no evidence of fraud or intentional tax evasion. The court quashed the show cause notice and the consequent demand order, effectively ruling in favor of the petitioner and dismissing the tax liability.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4881 
