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...
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned demand of service tax, interest and penalty. The Tribunal held that, under clause (b) of s.66E of the Finance Act, 1994, sale consideration received after issuance of a completion certificate by the competent authority is not leviable to service tax, and that the statute makes no distinction between a partial completion certificate (PCC) and a completion certificate (CC). The PCC in the present case preceded the booking and receipt of consideration for the flat; therefore no service tax was payable. Invocation of the extended period under the proviso to s.73 failed for lack of wilful misstatement or suppression, and consequential interest/penalty were disallowed.
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned demand of service tax, interest and penalty. The Tribunal held that, under clause (b) of s.66E of the Finance Act, 1994, sale consideration received after issuance of a completion certificate by the competent authority is not leviable to service tax, and that the statute makes no distinction between a partial completion certificate (PCC) and a completion certificate (CC). The PCC in the present case preceded the booking and receipt of consideration for the flat; therefore no service tax was payable. Invocation of the extended period under the proviso to s.73 failed for lack of wilful misstatement or suppression, and consequential interest/penalty were disallowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
