Charitable trust income application permits verified capital expenditure but rejects deferred pre-operative claims and requires reconsideration of con...
Reinsurance premium deductions require established regulatory breaches, while independently acquired software qualifies within the computer depreciati...
Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Page of 4801
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
861 to 880 of 96001 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CESTAT held that the demand for service tax on amounts received up to 30.06.2012 from the State-affiliated urban improvement trust cannot be sustained because the trust did not fall within the statutory definition of "person" operative before 01.07.2012; accordingly that portion of the demand was set aside. For the period July 2012-March 2015 the Tribunal upheld the demand, finding the trust's sale of EWS/LIG flats to be a commercial supply not covered by the notified exemption and that the appellant was not entitled to reliance on Notification No.25/2012; however, taxable events were to be quantified by dates of payment under the continuous-supply principle. Extended-period invocation was rejected and penalties were set aside; the impugned order was modified and the appeal allowed.
CESTAT held that the demand for service tax on amounts received up to 30.06.2012 from the State-affiliated urban improvement trust cannot be sustained because the trust did not fall within the statutory definition of "person" operative before 01.07.2012; accordingly that portion of the demand was set aside. For the period July 2012-March 2015 the Tribunal upheld the demand, finding the trust's sale of EWS/LIG flats to be a commercial supply not covered by the notified exemption and that the appellant was not entitled to reliance on Notification No.25/2012; however, taxable events were to be quantified by dates of payment under the continuous-supply principle. Extended-period invocation was rejected and penalties were set aside; the impugned order was modified and the appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
