Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Limitation in oppression and mismanagement proceedings: prior knowledge of removal and dilution barred the challenge, with valuation directions upheld...
Insolvency professional agency governance rules amended to add nominee directors, tighten independent director eligibility, and regulate managing dire...
Grant-in-aid received under a government scheme for setting up and modernising a rice milling unit was treated as reimbursement of capital expenditure already incurred, not as consideration for any taxable service. The Tribunal found no service provider-recipient relationship, no evidence of any knowhow or intellectual property being created and transferred, and no contractual counter-obligation arising from the grant conditions. In the absence of consideration for a service, the amount was held outside service tax under the Finance Act, 1994. The demand for tax, interest and penalty was therefore set aside, following earlier decisions treating grant-in-aid or reimbursement, without anything over and above the grant, as non-taxable.
Grant-in-aid received under a government scheme for setting up and modernising a rice milling unit was treated as reimbursement of capital expenditure already incurred, not as consideration for any taxable service. The Tribunal found no service provider-recipient relationship, no evidence of any knowhow or intellectual property being created and transferred, and no contractual counter-obligation arising from the grant conditions. In the absence of consideration for a service, the amount was held outside service tax under the Finance Act, 1994. The demand for tax, interest and penalty was therefore set aside, following earlier decisions treating grant-in-aid or reimbursement, without anything over and above the grant, as non-taxable.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.