Form 26AS evidence requires successor-entity accounting verification after business transfer, while invoice-supported related-party advertising expend...
Money-laundering judgment timing requires awaiting the scheduled-offence decision despite continuation of the underlying trial where outcomes directly...
Accredited investor eligibility expands through securities-market exposure, while alternative investment fund disputes require prescribed resolution a...
Page of 4916
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
41 to 60 of 98302 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Service tax demand and interest were raised on the amount towards provident fund. Penalties u/ss 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 were imposed. The extended period of limitation u/s 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 was invoked. The appellant was aware of providing taxable services and short-paid service tax, despite issuing invoices indicating service tax payable and collecting it from the service recipient. They did not file ST-3 returns on time as specified by law, suppressing information with the intent to evade taxes. The demand by invoking the extended period and imposing penalties cannot be disputed. The appellant's submissions were inconsistent, initially not contesting the show cause notice but later challenging the applicable rates without substantiation. The CESTAT rejected the challenge to the First Appellate authority's order, finding no merit.
Service tax demand and interest were raised on the amount towards provident fund. Penalties u/ss 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 were imposed. The extended period of limitation u/s 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 was invoked. The appellant was aware of providing taxable services and short-paid service tax, despite issuing invoices indicating service tax payable and collecting it from the service recipient. They did not file ST-3 returns on time as specified by law, suppressing information with the intent to evade taxes. The demand by invoking the extended period and imposing penalties cannot be disputed. The appellant's submissions were inconsistent, initially not contesting the show cause notice but later challenging the applicable rates without substantiation. The CESTAT rejected the challenge to the First Appellate authority's order, finding no merit.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4916 
