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 partially allowed the appeal, finding that the services constituted original works eligible for 60% abatement under Rule 2A(ii)(A). The tribunal set aside most service tax demands and penalties, permitting only proportionate CENVAT credit reversal under Rule 6(3) for the normal limitation period. The court determined the appellant's work involved comprehensive building transformation, not merely finishing services, and rejected extended limitation period claims. The matter was remanded to the Commissioner to calculate CENVAT credit reversal for the standard limitation timeframe, effectively nullifying potential additional tax liability due to GST regime transition.
CESTAT partially allowed the appeal, finding that the services constituted original works eligible for 60% abatement under Rule 2A(ii)(A). The tribunal set aside most service tax demands and penalties, permitting only proportionate CENVAT credit reversal under Rule 6(3) for the normal limitation period. The court determined the appellant's work involved comprehensive building transformation, not merely finishing services, and rejected extended limitation period claims. The matter was remanded to the Commissioner to calculate CENVAT credit reversal for the standard limitation timeframe, effectively nullifying potential additional tax liability due to GST regime transition.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
