PMLA anticipatory bail requires satisfaction of twin conditions, while predicate-offence protection does not extend to independent money-laundering pr...
School-affiliation charges remain taxable where not directly connected with examinations, while extended limitation requires proof of deliberate tax e...
Concessional penalty for search-disclosed unreconciled jewellery applies where substantive disclosure conditions are met despite omission from origina...
Page of 4826
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1 to 20 of 96510 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The dominant issue was whether works contract services for a public water supply scheme (pipeline laying and allied works) provided to a government authority were exempt under specified notifications/entries, including Sl. No. 12 of Notification No. 25/2012-ST. The tribunal held exemption applies only if the activities strictly fall within the notification; on examining the nature of work, the claimed exemption was denied and the corresponding service tax demand sustained, while the demand relating to exempt water-treatment/sewerage-related works (including certain underground reservoir/ranney well works) was correctly dropped. On limitation, extended period was upheld because prior conduct under VCES negated bona fide belief, sustaining the demand. Penalties under s.77 and interest under s.75 were upheld for statutory contraventions and delayed payment, and the appeal was dismissed. - CESTAT
The dominant issue was whether works contract services for a public water supply scheme (pipeline laying and allied works) provided to a government authority were exempt under specified notifications/entries, including Sl. No. 12 of Notification No. 25/2012-ST. The tribunal held exemption applies only if the activities strictly fall within the notification; on examining the nature of work, the claimed exemption was denied and the corresponding service tax demand sustained, while the demand relating to exempt water-treatment/sewerage-related works (including certain underground reservoir/ranney well works) was correctly dropped. On limitation, extended period was upheld because prior conduct under VCES negated bona fide belief, sustaining the demand. Penalties under s.77 and interest under s.75 were upheld for statutory contraventions and delayed payment, and the appeal was dismissed. - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
Join Channel 
