Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
The CESTAT held that the appellant's training programme, approved by the Ministry of Skill Development & Entrepreneurship and conducted as a partner of the National Skill Development Corporation, qualifies for exemption from service tax under Sl. No. 9A of Notification No. 25/2012-ST. The Tribunal found the programme falls within the scope of approved vocational education courses eligible for exemption under Section 66D(1)(iii) of the Finance Act, 1994, rendering further discussion on this ground unnecessary. Regarding limitation, the Department's prior knowledge and acknowledgement of the appellant's activities precluded invocation of the extended period for tax recovery, as no suppression of facts was established. Accordingly, the demand confirmed against the appellant was set aside on limitation grounds. The appeal was allowed, with no service tax liability confirmed against the appellant.
The CESTAT held that the appellant's training programme, approved by the Ministry of Skill Development & Entrepreneurship and conducted as a partner of the National Skill Development Corporation, qualifies for exemption from service tax under Sl. No. 9A of Notification No. 25/2012-ST. The Tribunal found the programme falls within the scope of approved vocational education courses eligible for exemption under Section 66D(1)(iii) of the Finance Act, 1994, rendering further discussion on this ground unnecessary. Regarding limitation, the Department's prior knowledge and acknowledgement of the appellant's activities precluded invocation of the extended period for tax recovery, as no suppression of facts was established. Accordingly, the demand confirmed against the appellant was set aside on limitation grounds. The appeal was allowed, with no service tax liability confirmed against the appellant.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
