Political contribution deductions require assessee-specific proof before cash-back allegations can justify disallowance or unexplained-money additions...
The CESTAT allowed the appeal, setting aside all confirmed demands of service tax. It held that no fraud or suppression warranted invocation of the extended limitation period. The reverse charge mechanism was inapplicable as the service provider had already charged and paid service tax, rendering further demand double taxation. Reimbursements of electricity, water, and diesel charges reflected actual consumption supported by evidentiary documents, negating service tax liability. The long-term lease agreements for 999 years constituted outright transfer of property, not a lease under Section 65(105)(zzzz) of the Finance Act, thus outside taxable services. Consequently, demands for interest and penalties were quashed, including those against the Manager (Accounts), as no service tax liability or offense was established.
The CESTAT allowed the appeal, setting aside all confirmed demands of service tax. It held that no fraud or suppression warranted invocation of the extended limitation period. The reverse charge mechanism was inapplicable as the service provider had already charged and paid service tax, rendering further demand double taxation. Reimbursements of electricity, water, and diesel charges reflected actual consumption supported by evidentiary documents, negating service tax liability. The long-term lease agreements for 999 years constituted outright transfer of property, not a lease under Section 65(105)(zzzz) of the Finance Act, thus outside taxable services. Consequently, demands for interest and penalties were quashed, including those against the Manager (Accounts), as no service tax liability or offense was established.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
Join Channel 
