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 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.
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.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
