Purposive interpretation of residential house exemption: unregistered purchase agreement alone does not defeat relief, but investment must be verified...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3041 to 3060 of 96333 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 a business correspondent's tax liability. The tribunal held that the appellant was eligible for exemption under entry 29(g) for services provided to rural banking branches during 01.04.2015 to 30.06.2017. No short payment of service tax was found for services to Rajcomp Info Services Ltd. The extended period of limitation was deemed non-invocable, and most penalties were set aside, with only a Rs.10,000 penalty under Section 77(2) upheld for non-filing of service tax returns. The tribunal effectively reduced the original tax demand, finding the appellant's actions were in good faith and not intentionally evasive.
CESTAT adjudicated a service tax dispute involving a business correspondent's tax liability. The tribunal held that the appellant was eligible for exemption under entry 29(g) for services provided to rural banking branches during 01.04.2015 to 30.06.2017. No short payment of service tax was found for services to Rajcomp Info Services Ltd. The extended period of limitation was deemed non-invocable, and most penalties were set aside, with only a Rs.10,000 penalty under Section 77(2) upheld for non-filing of service tax returns. The tribunal effectively reduced the original tax demand, finding the appellant's actions were in good faith and not intentionally evasive.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
