Input tax credit conditions remain constitutionally valid, with eligible recipient claims considered under GST circulars and retrospective filing dead...
Bogus donation receipts justified commission income assessment and defeated political-party tax exemption for inaccurate accounts and reporting failur...
Pure reimbursement without income element escapes tax withholding, while delayed withholding and unsupported provisions face deferred or renewed scrut...
Public benefit requirement defeats charitable registration where residents' association services are reciprocal, member-only facilities governed by mu...
Exempt-income expenditure disallowance is confined to investments that actually generated exempt income, while supported business expenses remain dedu...
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 4813 
Join Channel 
