The final assessment order was emailed to the assessee after the limitation period had expired. The Tribunal held that the delayed communication rendered the assessment time-barred.
The Tribunal held that the assessee’s objection regarding approval under Section 151 required consideration. The matter was sent back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
CESTAT held that rent paid for walls used to display advertisements forms an intrinsic component of advertising services and must be included in the taxable value. The Tribunal rejected the claim that the advertiser acted as a pure agent. However, the value of printed flexes sold separately was excluded from service tax valuation.
CESTAT held that for quarterly Rule 5 refund claims, the one-year limitation period must be calculated from the end of the quarter in which the FIRC is received. The Tribunal ruled that export of services is completed only upon receipt of foreign exchange.
CESTAT held that once service tax and interest were paid before issuance of the SCN and the payment was intimated to the department, penalty proceedings could not be sustained. The Section 78 penalty was therefore set aside.
The Tribunal held that although the assessee produced documentary evidence supporting the loan, questions regarding the lender’s financial capacity and source of funds required deeper examination. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification.
The Tribunal upheld the deduction of interest expenditure after finding that the loan was utilized wholly for business activities. Once business use was established, the deduction could not be denied merely on technical grounds.
The Tribunal held that housekeeping services used for maintaining telecom equipment and business premises qualify as input services. Credit was allowed as the services were directly connected with the provision of telecommunication output services.
The Tribunal held that a university is substantially financed by the Government only when Government grants exceed 50% of total receipts during the relevant previous year. Since the prescribed threshold was not met, the exemption was denied.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that unsecured loan additions could not be sustained where the assessee furnished confirmations, bank statements, and tax records, and the Revenue failed to establish any cash trail or nexus with alleged accommodation entries.
