Political contribution deductions require assessee-specific proof before cash-back allegations can justify disallowance or unexplained-money additions...
CESTAT held that the impugned service-tax demand, founded solely on CBDT data without independent corroborative evidence from service-tax records, was unsustainable; mere entries in income-tax filings do not establish liability under the Finance Act. The Tribunal found the appellants rendered arranging-transport services but did not issue consignment notes, and therefore the receipts fell within the negative list exclusion (s.66D(P)(i)(A)); accordingly the service was not taxable as GTA. Suppression with intent to evade tax was not established, so the extended period of limitation could not be invoked. Consequent demands of service tax, interest and penalty were set aside and the appeal was allowed.
CESTAT held that the impugned service-tax demand, founded solely on CBDT data without independent corroborative evidence from service-tax records, was unsustainable; mere entries in income-tax filings do not establish liability under the Finance Act. The Tribunal found the appellants rendered arranging-transport services but did not issue consignment notes, and therefore the receipts fell within the negative list exclusion (s.66D(P)(i)(A)); accordingly the service was not taxable as GTA. Suppression with intent to evade tax was not established, so the extended period of limitation could not be invoked. Consequent demands of service tax, interest and penalty were set aside and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
Join Channel 
