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 adjudicated a case involving Cenvat Credit and service tax disputes. The tribunal partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the service tax demand of Rs. 69,88,709 related to forfeited deposits, finding that such amounts do not constitute consideration for declared services under Section 66E(e) of the Finance Act. The tribunal remanded the Cenvat Credit disallowance issue to the original adjudicating authority, directing the appellant to produce requisite invoices and documents for a fresh assessment. The penalty orders were also set aside, with the appeal being allowed partially in favor of the appellant.
CESTAT adjudicated a case involving Cenvat Credit and service tax disputes. The tribunal partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the service tax demand of Rs. 69,88,709 related to forfeited deposits, finding that such amounts do not constitute consideration for declared services under Section 66E(e) of the Finance Act. The tribunal remanded the Cenvat Credit disallowance issue to the original adjudicating authority, directing the appellant to produce requisite invoices and documents for a fresh assessment. The penalty orders were also set aside, with the appeal being allowed partially in favor of the appellant.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
