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 reversed the original authority's decision to drop proceedings for recovery of tax, interest under section 75, and penalties under section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, relating to maintenance or repair of roads service. It was held that the activity qualifies as maintenance or repair of roads, which includes carriageways and landscaped dividers, rejecting the narrower interpretation that excluded dividers. The tribunal emphasized that retrospective exemptions granted by CBEC and prior rulings extend to pavements and dividers, undermining the tax department's reliance on the extended limitation period for the 2008-09 assessment. Given the inconsistent administrative position and authoritative precedents, the invocation of the extended limitation period was found unjustified. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
The CESTAT reversed the original authority's decision to drop proceedings for recovery of tax, interest under section 75, and penalties under section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, relating to maintenance or repair of roads service. It was held that the activity qualifies as maintenance or repair of roads, which includes carriageways and landscaped dividers, rejecting the narrower interpretation that excluded dividers. The tribunal emphasized that retrospective exemptions granted by CBEC and prior rulings extend to pavements and dividers, undermining the tax department's reliance on the extended limitation period for the 2008-09 assessment. Given the inconsistent administrative position and authoritative precedents, the invocation of the extended limitation period was found unjustified. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
