DEPB licences sold by the appellant were based on fabricated documents showing export of goods to Bangladesh through Land Customs Station
Addition has been made as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act which is incorrect and against the provision of Act as the said explanation deals with the disallowance and addition of expenditure the source whereof is not explained by the assessee.
CESTAT find that Appellant claims that most of demands have been raised under the wrong category of services hence not sustainable.
Noticee has a right to get copies of documents. Department has to record reasons for denying request for cross examination. Cross examination cannot be denied stating that no purpose will be achieved.
Jurisdiction of ITAT Bench which can decide appeal is to be determined by location of Assessing Officer. Since, location of AO in instant proceeding is at Mumbai, the appeals, should have been filed before Mumbai Benches and not in Delhi Benches.
Rented property jointly owned by five persons, whether appellants are liable to service tax by clubbing of all five persons or otherwise
Limitation for default in filing of the return u/s 153A would start from expiry of time allowed by AO in notice u/s 153A and assessee filed the return within time allowed by notice u/s 153A of the Act and, therefore, there is no delay in filing return of income by assessee as provided u/s 153A. No interest is levibale u/s 234A
No Service Tax could be levied on construction of residential complexes prior to 01.07.2010 even when service is rendered either as service simpliciter or as a works contract
CESTAT Ahmedabad dismisses revenue’s appeal against IOCL, affirming the transaction value under Section 4(1)(a), setting a precedent for similar cases.
ub-section (5) of Section 203 of the Act provides that if any company makes any default in complying with the provisions of this section, such company shall be liable to a penalty of five lakh rupees and every director and key managerial personnel of the company who is in default shall be liable to a penalty of fifty thousand rupees and where the default is a continuing one, with a further penalty of one thousand rupees for each day after the first during which such default continues but not exceeding five lakh rupees.
