Foreign portfolio investment liberalisation extends listed equity access to all individual persons resident outside India, subject to limit monitoring...
Unsubstantiated exempt agricultural income claim sustains concealment penalty after disclosure only on departmental detection and no bona fide evidenc...
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 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
