Attachment and proclamation of sale of immovable property: limitation treated from financial year end; proclamation held within period, petition dismi...
Second Schedule attachment and validity of a post-notice mortgage: TRO cannot declare mortgage void ab initio; sale and appropriation allowed thereaft...
Limitation for final assessment under sections 144C and 153 treated jointly, resulting in quashing of timebarred assessment order and liberty to reviv...
Deductibility of settlement payments for securities law penalties and treatment of unexplained cash credits in share trading -- Tribunal upholds posit...
Threshold for allottee-initiated insolvency petitions in leasehold real estate upheld; petition admitted after possession letters deemed legally ineff...
Contravention of foreign exchange rules in crossborder diamond payments; appellate tribunal reduces one appellant's penalty for delay and proportional...
Upfront fee and excess spread income arising from securitization/sell-down of future receivables were held to be profits/interest from sale of receivables, with no underlying "service" element, and therefore not exigible to service tax under Business Support Service; the Department's challenge to dropping of these demands was not maintainable. Collection efficiency fee and sell-down servicing fee were accepted as taxable, and interest on delayed payment was upheld; however, this did not sustain the Revenue's appeal on merits. Alleged suppression was rejected since the material facts were already within departmental knowledge from an earlier notice, making invocation of the extended limitation period unjustified. Revenue's appeal was dismissed. - CESTAT
Upfront fee and excess spread income arising from securitization/sell-down of future receivables were held to be profits/interest from sale of receivables, with no underlying "service" element, and therefore not exigible to service tax under Business Support Service; the Department's challenge to dropping of these demands was not maintainable. Collection efficiency fee and sell-down servicing fee were accepted as taxable, and interest on delayed payment was upheld; however, this did not sustain the Revenue's appeal on merits. Alleged suppression was rejected since the material facts were already within departmental knowledge from an earlier notice, making invocation of the extended limitation period unjustified. Revenue's appeal was dismissed. - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
