Foreign portfolio investment liberalisation extends listed equity access to all individual persons resident outside India, subject to limit monitoring...
Unsubstantiated exempt agricultural income claim sustains concealment penalty after disclosure only on departmental detection and no bona fide evidenc...
The CESTAT allowed the appeal of M/s X against the impugned order, setting aside the service tax demand of Rs. 2,22,51,053/- on amounts wrongly treated as taxable advances, holding them to be refundable loans not linked to any taxable service. The Tribunal further held that the service tax demand of Rs. 16,44,878/- under RCM on imported services was unsustainable, being a revenue-neutral situation, and also barred by limitation as the extended period could not be invoked through a third SCN on the same issue. Consequently, interest and penalties under Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 were quashed. However, late fee of Rs. 21,700/- for delayed ST-3 returns was upheld, subject to adjustment of Rs. 7,900/- already paid.
The CESTAT allowed the appeal of M/s X against the impugned order, setting aside the service tax demand of Rs. 2,22,51,053/- on amounts wrongly treated as taxable advances, holding them to be refundable loans not linked to any taxable service. The Tribunal further held that the service tax demand of Rs. 16,44,878/- under RCM on imported services was unsustainable, being a revenue-neutral situation, and also barred by limitation as the extended period could not be invoked through a third SCN on the same issue. Consequently, interest and penalties under Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 were quashed. However, late fee of Rs. 21,700/- for delayed ST-3 returns was upheld, subject to adjustment of Rs. 7,900/- already paid.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4807
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
