Donor-directed corpus contributions retain capital character despite exemption claims under section 10(23C)(vi), preventing their treatment as taxable...
Enhanced tax-audit threshold applies where banking records establish compliant non-cash receipts and payments, eliminating penalty exposure for audit ...
Transfer pricing consistency protects identical non-interest-bearing debenture terms from a later notional-interest adjustment without valid statutory...
Rectification of debatable deduction claims cannot reverse scrutiny-approved co-operative society interest income deductions as apparent record errors...
Cash-method accounting bars presumptive interest taxation, while unsupported securities and share-trading additions require reliable material and veri...
CESTAT held that subcontracted works executed for authorised operations in an SEZ qualified for Notification No. 4/2004-S.T. because the services were for consumption within the SEZ and had Development Commissioner approval; exemption could not be denied merely because the appellant acted as a sub-contractor, so that demand was set aside. It also held that no time limit governed availment of Cenvat credit during the relevant period, so denial on delay was unsustainable; however, the credit issue was remanded for verification of invoices, documentary eligibility and tax payment. Demands for works contract services rendered outside the SEZ, supply of tangible goods, and collected service tax on road work were sustained with interest, while limitation was upheld for the non-SEZ demand. Penalties were set aside pending fresh quantification.
CESTAT held that subcontracted works executed for authorised operations in an SEZ qualified for Notification No. 4/2004-S.T. because the services were for consumption within the SEZ and had Development Commissioner approval; exemption could not be denied merely because the appellant acted as a sub-contractor, so that demand was set aside. It also held that no time limit governed availment of Cenvat credit during the relevant period, so denial on delay was unsustainable; however, the credit issue was remanded for verification of invoices, documentary eligibility and tax payment. Demands for works contract services rendered outside the SEZ, supply of tangible goods, and collected service tax on road work were sustained with interest, while limitation was upheld for the non-SEZ demand. Penalties were set aside pending fresh quantification.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
