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...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Merchant banker regulation consolidates registration, governance, capital, reporting, outsourcing and investor-protection requirements under an update...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
601 to 620 of 95957 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The appellant was liable to pay service tax on banking and financial services, but their failure to do so was not willful or deliberate. The non-disclosure of certain assessable items does not attract the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994. No penalty is imposable on the appellant, but they must pay interest on the belated payment of tax u/s 75 of the Finance Act, 1994. The High Court partially allowed the appeal, holding that no penalty is payable by the appellant under any provisions of the Act, but they must pay interest on the belated tax payment.
The appellant was liable to pay service tax on banking and financial services, but their failure to do so was not willful or deliberate. The non-disclosure of certain assessable items does not attract the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994. No penalty is imposable on the appellant, but they must pay interest on the belated payment of tax u/s 75 of the Finance Act, 1994. The High Court partially allowed the appeal, holding that no penalty is payable by the appellant under any provisions of the Act, but they must pay interest on the belated tax payment.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.