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...
The CESTAT set aside the demand for service tax on royalty charges under reverse charge, aligning with precedent that rights assigned predate payment terms. Denial of CENVAT credit on capital goods used partly for exempt services was reversed, recognizing credit eligibility where goods serve both taxable and exempt activities. However, the order was remanded regarding input service credit reversal, as the original authority failed to correctly apply proportionate reversal under Rule 6 of CCR, 2004. Service tax demands on works contract services were upheld, as the appellant failed to remit tax collected under specified work orders. Invocation of the extended limitation period was upheld due to non-cooperation and suppression of records during audit. Interest for delayed tax payment and penalties under Section 78 were confirmed. The appeal was allowed in part, with certain demands set aside and others restored or remanded for reassessment.
The CESTAT set aside the demand for service tax on royalty charges under reverse charge, aligning with precedent that rights assigned predate payment terms. Denial of CENVAT credit on capital goods used partly for exempt services was reversed, recognizing credit eligibility where goods serve both taxable and exempt activities. However, the order was remanded regarding input service credit reversal, as the original authority failed to correctly apply proportionate reversal under Rule 6 of CCR, 2004. Service tax demands on works contract services were upheld, as the appellant failed to remit tax collected under specified work orders. Invocation of the extended limitation period was upheld due to non-cooperation and suppression of records during audit. Interest for delayed tax payment and penalties under Section 78 were confirmed. The appeal was allowed in part, with certain demands set aside and others restored or remanded for reassessment.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
