Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
701 to 720 of 95833 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 the taxability of health care services related to Stem Cell/Umbilical Cord Blood Banking. The issue was whether these services fell under the Negative List or the Mega Exemption Notification. The retrospective application of Notification No. 04/2014-ST was questioned, with reference to Circular No. 334/03/2014-TRU. The court held that retrospective application was not intended by the legislative amendment. The extended period of limitation was deemed applicable. The circular was found not to support retrospective effect. The decision of the Madras High Court in a similar case was followed. The appellant's inaction on registration and non-filing of returns showed willful default. The impugned order was upheld as legally sound, and the appeal was dismissed by CESTAT (Appellate Tribunal).
The case involved the taxability of health care services related to Stem Cell/Umbilical Cord Blood Banking. The issue was whether these services fell under the Negative List or the Mega Exemption Notification. The retrospective application of Notification No. 04/2014-ST was questioned, with reference to Circular No. 334/03/2014-TRU. The court held that retrospective application was not intended by the legislative amendment. The extended period of limitation was deemed applicable. The circular was found not to support retrospective effect. The decision of the Madras High Court in a similar case was followed. The appellant's inaction on registration and non-filing of returns showed willful default. The impugned order was upheld as legally sound, and the appeal was dismissed by CESTAT (Appellate Tribunal).
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
