Condonation of delay in filing GSTR-3B returns and entitlement to Section 62 benefit results in withdrawal of assessments and revocation of attachment...
Penalty for estimation of income and disallowances for tax non-deduction clarified: estimation-based penalties not sustainable; additions without conc...
Managerial remuneration disallowance under s.40A(2)(b) challenged over alleged tax-avoidance; appellate decision restored deletion of addition for dir...
Page of 4821
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
6921 to 6940 of 96406 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 4821 
Join Channel 
