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...
The CESTAT allowed the appellant's appeal, set aside the impugned order and quashed demands for service tax, interest and penalties insofar as they related to forfeited earnest money, security deposits, fines and penal charges. The Tribunal held such forfeitures are penal in nature and lack nexus with any taxable "consideration" for the declared service under section 66E(e) of the Finance Act, 1994; they do not constitute consideration for agreeing to refrain or tolerate an act and therefore are not includible in taxable value. The adjudicating authorities were rebuked for disregarding precedent, characterized as judicial indiscipline, and were warned to exercise greater care in future proceedings.
The CESTAT allowed the appellant's appeal, set aside the impugned order and quashed demands for service tax, interest and penalties insofar as they related to forfeited earnest money, security deposits, fines and penal charges. The Tribunal held such forfeitures are penal in nature and lack nexus with any taxable "consideration" for the declared service under section 66E(e) of the Finance Act, 1994; they do not constitute consideration for agreeing to refrain or tolerate an act and therefore are not includible in taxable value. The adjudicating authorities were rebuked for disregarding precedent, characterized as judicial indiscipline, and were warned to exercise greater care in future proceedings.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
