Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
CESTAT held that the appellant, a study centre, was not entitled to service tax exemption under multiple notifications due to direct fee collection from students. The tribunal found no wilful suppression of facts to justify extended limitation period under section 73(1) of Finance Act. The demand for service tax during normal limitation period was confirmed, while the extended period demand was set aside. The matter was remitted to Commissioner to examine the normal period demand and potential penalties. The appeal was partially allowed, with the appellant required to pay service tax for the standard limitation timeframe.
CESTAT held that the appellant, a study centre, was not entitled to service tax exemption under multiple notifications due to direct fee collection from students. The tribunal found no wilful suppression of facts to justify extended limitation period under section 73(1) of Finance Act. The demand for service tax during normal limitation period was confirmed, while the extended period demand was set aside. The matter was remitted to Commissioner to examine the normal period demand and potential penalties. The appeal was partially allowed, with the appellant required to pay service tax for the standard limitation timeframe.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
