Scope of intermediary status for data hosting services: tribunal finds provider not intermediary, services exported and not taxable, limited remand on...
CENVAT credit availability after omission of Rule 12B in textiles confirmed; late addendum to SCN introducing new grounds held time-barred and invalid...
Export of Wheat Flour and related products subject to online allocation, eligibility criteria, non-transferable six-month authorisations and reporting...
Straight-line lease rental accounting change results in penalty quashed where disclosed accounts and bona fide arguable accounting interpretation exis...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
7241 to 7260 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CESTAT allowed the appeal filed by the hospital-assessees, holding that services rendered to doctors/consultants under a revenue-sharing model are not taxable as "Business Support Services" but qualify as "Health Care Services," which are exempt from service tax. Relying on consistent Tribunal precedent, it rejected the department's contention that providing infrastructure and related facilities to doctors constituted support of commerce or business. CESTAT further held that invocation of the extended period of limitation was impermissible as the dispute concerned interpretation of law and the department failed to establish suppression or misstatement; consequently, even the demand for the normal period could not survive.
CESTAT allowed the appeal filed by the hospital-assessees, holding that services rendered to doctors/consultants under a revenue-sharing model are not taxable as "Business Support Services" but qualify as "Health Care Services," which are exempt from service tax. Relying on consistent Tribunal precedent, it rejected the department's contention that providing infrastructure and related facilities to doctors constituted support of commerce or business. CESTAT further held that invocation of the extended period of limitation was impermissible as the dispute concerned interpretation of law and the department failed to establish suppression or misstatement; consequently, even the demand for the normal period could not survive.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.