Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
Threshold exemption excludes exempt services, while stamp-paper purchases avoid reverse charge; consequential service tax penalties were also set asid...
Employee conflict disclosures and investment restrictions expand with new recusal duties, post-employment limits, and compliance reporting requirement...
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 4821 
Join Channel 
