Opportunity to furnish unsecured-loan confirmations is required before reassessment initiation; proceedings require fresh consideration after taxpayer...
Under-reporting on a first reassessment return attracts penalty, while enhanced misreporting penalty requires proof of a statutory misreporting catego...
Appellants providing long duration courses not approved by AICTE were exempted from service tax liability u/s 65(105)(zzc) of Finance Act, 1994 until Finance Act, 2011 removed the exemption. However, Finance Act, 2012 reinstated the exemption from 01.07.2012. Thus, appellants had no tax liability for the impugned period. The department wrongly alleged suppression of facts and invoked extended period of limitation despite absence of tax evasion or malafide intent. CESTAT set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal.
Appellants providing long duration courses not approved by AICTE were exempted from service tax liability u/s 65(105)(zzc) of Finance Act, 1994 until Finance Act, 2011 removed the exemption. However, Finance Act, 2012 reinstated the exemption from 01.07.2012. Thus, appellants had no tax liability for the impugned period. The department wrongly alleged suppression of facts and invoked extended period of limitation despite absence of tax evasion or malafide intent. CESTAT set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4916 
