Defined public benefit can retain charitable character; registration renewal requires examining genuine activities and legal compliance, not surplus a...
Capital reduction is distinct from share buy-back, preventing buy-back tax; restructuring interest and related business deductions also survive scruti...
Transfer pricing and tax deductions upheld on established principles, while employee contributions and warranty provisions returned for fresh examinat...
Captive transfer pricing relies on industrial consumer tariffs, while genuine quotations can benchmark effluent treatment transfers under the Other Me...
Specific tariff classification for ophthalmic instruments and extended limitation principles determine the treatment of duty demands, confiscation, an...
Page of 4801
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1161 to 1180 of 96001 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 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
