Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
Defined public benefit can retain charitable character; registration renewal requires examining genuine activities and legal compliance, not surplus a...
Capital reduction is distinct from share buy-back, preventing buy-back tax; restructuring interest and related business deductions also survive scruti...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1481 to 1500 of 96333 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.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
