Reassessment under s.148A held valid; s.69 additions totaling Rs.7,00,000 deleted after acceptable contemporaneous explanations for property investmen...
Adjudication set aside; Rule 9 valuation based on internet engineer report quashed for Rule 3(4) non-compliance; Section 138B cross-examination requir...
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 4826 
Join Channel 
