Tax exemption for regulatory authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return filing...
Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
461 to 480 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 key points are: Appropriation of Rs. 11,00,000 deposited under protest during investigation cannot be considered as acceptance of liability. The extended period of limitation u/s 73(1) of the Finance Act cannot be invoked as the department failed to substantiate that the appellant suppressed material facts with an intent to evade service tax payment. The Supreme Court and Delhi High Court have held that for invoking extended limitation, suppression of facts must be willful with intent to evade tax. The burden of proving willful suppression lies on the department. Mere non-payment or short payment does not constitute suppression unless there is a deliberate act to evade tax with intent. The Tribunal dismissed the department's appeal against the Commissioner's order holding that extended limitation cannot be invoked in this case.
The key points are: Appropriation of Rs. 11,00,000 deposited under protest during investigation cannot be considered as acceptance of liability. The extended period of limitation u/s 73(1) of the Finance Act cannot be invoked as the department failed to substantiate that the appellant suppressed material facts with an intent to evade service tax payment. The Supreme Court and Delhi High Court have held that for invoking extended limitation, suppression of facts must be willful with intent to evade tax. The burden of proving willful suppression lies on the department. Mere non-payment or short payment does not constitute suppression unless there is a deliberate act to evade tax with intent. The Tribunal dismissed the department's appeal against the Commissioner's order holding that extended limitation cannot be invoked in this case.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
