Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
- ⚖️ Instantly identify judgments decided in favour of the Assessee, Revenue, or Appellant
- 🔍 Narrow down results with higher precision
Try it now in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New Feature Launched ✕
Just a moment...
Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
Try it now in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Highlights
of of All Highlights
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of CESTAT allowed the appeal: amounts collected as 'lease money' were held not to be consideration for renting immovable property but merely mandated collections remitted to the State, therefore no service and no taxable consideration - demands on that count quashed; payments to an individual engaged by the appellant were characterised as salary/wages, not manpower supply agency services, so that demand was set aside; invocation of the extended period of limitation for irregular CENVAT credit was rejected because routine self-assessment and audit detection do not satisfy the statutory requisites for extension; consequential penalties under sections 77 and 78 (Appellant 1) and section 78 (Appellant 2) were set aside. Appeal disposed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
