Capital gains valuation from stamp assessment versus net consideration for residential reinvestment: deemed stamp value replaced for gains but not for...
Tax determination against deceased proprietor invalid where no notice to legal representative; appeal rejected without addressing jurisdictional defec...
Revocation of GST registration and permission to file blocked returns; conditional defreezing of bank accounts after security and instalment applicati...
Page of 4826
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
6681 to 6700 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 
of 4826 
Join Channel 
