Unlawful outward remittances via Hawala using proforma invoices and electronic records proved; documents admitted, directors penalised, penalties redu...
Attachment of equivalent-value properties as proceeds of crime upheld; preventive attachment order and confirmation sustained; no independent ED reinv...
Broker trading-system "technical glitch" redefinition and narrowed incident-reporting regime for large IBT/STWT brokers requiring 2-hr notice and 14-w...
Page of 4821
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
7241 to 7260 of 96408 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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.