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...
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 
of 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
