Capital-gains exemption for charitable trusts extends to qualifying fixed deposits, while unrecoverable TDS write-offs may constitute income applicati...
India-UK treaty characterisation of telecom-service receipts as business profits withstands unilateral domestic-law amendments for Indian tax purposes...
Transfer-pricing reimbursement adjustments require uncontrolled comparables and cannot become expense-genuineness reviews, resulting in deletion of th...
Food import sampling requirements support provisional release where unseized consignments conform to standards and raw areca classification is unestab...
Page of 4883
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
321 to 340 of 97649 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The Department of Revenue lacked jurisdiction to issue a Show Cause Notice (SCN) demanding service tax from the appellant. The SCN failed to establish that the appellant provided any taxable service. The appellant's activity involved sale of fruits, covered under the negative list in Section 66D(e) of the Finance Act, 1994, exempting it from service tax. Additionally, the SCN was sent to an incorrect address, resulting in the appellant not receiving it or the order until November 2022, after requesting it. During the relevant period, the Department lacked authority to demand service tax from the appellant. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed by the CESTAT (Appellate Tribunal).
The Department of Revenue lacked jurisdiction to issue a Show Cause Notice (SCN) demanding service tax from the appellant. The SCN failed to establish that the appellant provided any taxable service. The appellant's activity involved sale of fruits, covered under the negative list in Section 66D(e) of the Finance Act, 1994, exempting it from service tax. Additionally, the SCN was sent to an incorrect address, resulting in the appellant not receiving it or the order until November 2022, after requesting it. During the relevant period, the Department lacked authority to demand service tax from the appellant. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed by the CESTAT (Appellate Tribunal).
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4883 
