Commercial vehicle depreciation, scientifically determined warranty provisions and exempt-income disallowances were resolved in favour of the taxpayer...
Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
Page of 4800
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
421 to 440 of 95999 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 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
