Faceless reassessment jurisdiction turned on retrospective AO definition, with later faceless-assessment changes treated as clarificatory and procedur...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
2121 to 2140 of 96100 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The case involved a dispute u/s CESTAT regarding the rejection of a refund claim based on the classification of services. The Appellant argued that the service provided was not "renting of immovable property" but "construction services." However, the Tribunal held that the Appellant cannot challenge the classification chosen by the service provider, who treated it as "renting of immovable property" and paid Service Tax accordingly. The Appellant failed to provide evidence to support their claim, leading to the rejection of the refund. The appeal was dismissed, and the request for remand was denied.
The case involved a dispute u/s CESTAT regarding the rejection of a refund claim based on the classification of services. The Appellant argued that the service provided was not "renting of immovable property" but "construction services." However, the Tribunal held that the Appellant cannot challenge the classification chosen by the service provider, who treated it as "renting of immovable property" and paid Service Tax accordingly. The Appellant failed to provide evidence to support their claim, leading to the rejection of the refund. The appeal was dismissed, and the request for remand was denied.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
