Timing mismatch in income recognition requires verification whether receipts were already taxed in an earlier year; matter remitted for fresh examinat...
Page of 4826
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
4821 to 4840 of 96509 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
An appeal was treated as timely where the appellant showed it had not earlier received the order-in-original, had repeatedly sought a copy through the department, the High Court and RTI, and filed the appeal within one month of actual receipt; the dismissal as time-barred was set aside. On limitation for the service tax demand, the Tribunal held that a notice issued solely on Form 26AS data, without enquiry into the nature of services or corroborative verification, could not sustain the demand or justify the extended period, especially after prolonged departmental inactivity; the confirmed demand was therefore set aside as barred by limitation.
An appeal was treated as timely where the appellant showed it had not earlier received the order-in-original, had repeatedly sought a copy through the department, the High Court and RTI, and filed the appeal within one month of actual receipt; the dismissal as time-barred was set aside. On limitation for the service tax demand, the Tribunal held that a notice issued solely on Form 26AS data, without enquiry into the nature of services or corroborative verification, could not sustain the demand or justify the extended period, especially after prolonged departmental inactivity; the confirmed demand was therefore set aside as barred by limitation.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4826 
Join Channel 
