Electronic WhatsApp evidence without authentication or independent corroboration cannot sustain an unexplained-investment addition based on third-part...
Mutual current-account transactions excluded from deemed dividend treatment where no fresh borrowing arose; unsupported unsecured-loan addition also f...
CESTAT held that the show-cause notice issued by the JC, CGST, Daman was valid because the registered office formed part of the factory's common business activity and its expenses were not separately accounted; any service-tax liability for that office would be payable by the factory. However, on merits the Tribunal concluded that the transfer/assignment of tenancy and occupancy rights in respect of the immovable property in Mumbai does not fall within the definition of "service" under Section 65B(44) of the Finance Act, 1994, and amounts received for such transfer are not liable to service tax. The appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside; extended limitation not adjudicated.
CESTAT held that the show-cause notice issued by the JC, CGST, Daman was valid because the registered office formed part of the factory's common business activity and its expenses were not separately accounted; any service-tax liability for that office would be payable by the factory. However, on merits the Tribunal concluded that the transfer/assignment of tenancy and occupancy rights in respect of the immovable property in Mumbai does not fall within the definition of "service" under Section 65B(44) of the Finance Act, 1994, and amounts received for such transfer are not liable to service tax. The appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside; extended limitation not adjudicated.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
