Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Page of 4814
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
901 to 920 of 96262 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Liability to pay Service Tax when the main contractor has already paid - The Tribunal cited a circular stating sub-contractors are liable to pay Service Tax separately. However, they ruled the extended limitation period couldn't be invoked due to ambiguity during the relevant period. Regarding the normal limitation period, they upheld the demand for October 2010 to March 2011. They rejected the appellant's argument based on a Supreme Court case and noted that the demand for this period wasn't dead. Ultimately, they confirmed the demand for the normal period but set aside the extended period demand.
Liability to pay Service Tax when the main contractor has already paid - The Tribunal cited a circular stating sub-contractors are liable to pay Service Tax separately. However, they ruled the extended limitation period couldn't be invoked due to ambiguity during the relevant period. Regarding the normal limitation period, they upheld the demand for October 2010 to March 2011. They rejected the appellant's argument based on a Supreme Court case and noted that the demand for this period wasn't dead. Ultimately, they confirmed the demand for the normal period but set aside the extended period demand.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.