Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Refund of service tax on composite works contracts was rejected because the appellant failed to prove that the tax burden had not been passed on, as the contract price was inclusive of tax and the customer had deducted part of the tax from payments. The Tribunal also found that the development and construction activities involved transfer of property in goods and therefore fell within works contract service, making the tax payment and corresponding refund claim untenable. It further reiterated that refund proceedings cannot be used to reopen unchallenged self-assessments or disturb assessments that have attained finality. The rejection of the refund claim was upheld.
Refund of service tax on composite works contracts was rejected because the appellant failed to prove that the tax burden had not been passed on, as the contract price was inclusive of tax and the customer had deducted part of the tax from payments. The Tribunal also found that the development and construction activities involved transfer of property in goods and therefore fell within works contract service, making the tax payment and corresponding refund claim untenable. It further reiterated that refund proceedings cannot be used to reopen unchallenged self-assessments or disturb assessments that have attained finality. The rejection of the refund claim was upheld.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.