Appeal allows marketing payments as deductible business expenses under Sec.37; director pay retained; R&D deductible from certificate date under Sec.3...
The CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order in toto, holding that the Department failed to discharge the onus of proof: mere discrepancies between ST-3 returns and income tax/Form 26AS could not sustain a service-tax demand. Demands under "accommodation service" and "works contract service" (totaling the impugned amounts) were held unsustainable for want of proper fact-finding, incorrect valuation (sale of drugs mischaracterised as accommodation receipts), and absence of evidence of works-contract activity. The Tribunal also upheld entitlement to abatement and found the extended limitation unjustified; consequential interest, penalty and late fee demands were therefore set aside. Appeal allowed.
The CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order in toto, holding that the Department failed to discharge the onus of proof: mere discrepancies between ST-3 returns and income tax/Form 26AS could not sustain a service-tax demand. Demands under "accommodation service" and "works contract service" (totaling the impugned amounts) were held unsustainable for want of proper fact-finding, incorrect valuation (sale of drugs mischaracterised as accommodation receipts), and absence of evidence of works-contract activity. The Tribunal also upheld entitlement to abatement and found the extended limitation unjustified; consequential interest, penalty and late fee demands were therefore set aside. Appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
