Inaccurate-particulars penalties fail where transfer-pricing documentation shows good faith and due diligence, and underlying capital-gains additions ...
Transfer-pricing tolerance for software sub-licensing falls within the services range, eliminating the adjustment and requiring TDS-credit verificatio...
Customs Broker due diligence requires prescribed KYC, not detecting misdeclarations discoverable only through physical examination, defeating licence ...
E-filing system failure permits exclusion of affected time in insolvency appeals, preventing tribunal technology defects from defeating timely filings...
Pre-existing disputes over outcome-based professional fees can bar Section 9 insolvency proceedings where contractual entitlement requires investigati...
Corresponding scheduled offences preserve money-laundering jurisdiction despite repeal of the central corruption provision where conduct remains cover...
Page of 4888
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
741 to 760 of 97755 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 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.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4888 
