Infrastructure-development deduction remains available to EPC contractors when substantive statutory conditions outweigh contractor labels in agreemen...
Explained Investment Sources: documented gifts and traceable salary savings supported deletion of additions for property and mutual-fund SIP investmen...
Internal comparable pricing supports arm's-length interest on compulsorily convertible debentures, preventing their recharacterisation as equity for t...
Nominee director protection shields independent financial-institution appointees from criminal liability where they lack involvement in deposit defaul...
The case involved a dispute regarding the entitlement to a reduced penalty under the second proviso to Section 78(1) of the Finance Act 1994. The appellant had not obtained service tax registration or paid the applicable tax. The Tribunal held that the 25% penalty was not applicable as the appellant did not pay the determined amount and interest within the specified timeframe. However, the appellant was granted the benefit of the first proviso, reducing the penalty to 50% for a specific period. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted the appellant's maintenance of records and transactions, making them eligible for the reduced penalty. The appellant was directed to calculate the total penalty liability and submit proof of payment to the authority. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
The case involved a dispute regarding the entitlement to a reduced penalty under the second proviso to Section 78(1) of the Finance Act 1994. The appellant had not obtained service tax registration or paid the applicable tax. The Tribunal held that the 25% penalty was not applicable as the appellant did not pay the determined amount and interest within the specified timeframe. However, the appellant was granted the benefit of the first proviso, reducing the penalty to 50% for a specific period. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted the appellant's maintenance of records and transactions, making them eligible for the reduced penalty. The appellant was directed to calculate the total penalty liability and submit proof of payment to the authority. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.