Invoice-based recovery claims remain time-barred despite separate winding-up proceedings, absent valid acknowledgment or part-payment of the disputed ...
Extended limitation fails without specific suppression allegations, while overseas employee secondment remains taxable as manpower supply within norma...
Time-share accommodation classification excludes Club or Association Service where purchasers receive contractual occupancy rights without genuine mem...
CENVAT credit for trading requires reversal, while taxable-service rental credit remains proportionately available and limitation issues await resolut...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 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" ?
Impugned order suffered from lack of reasoning regarding variation in service tax estimate between declarant/petitioner and designated authority. 50% of demand confirmed, with petitioner submitting lessee paid said amount eligible for set-off under Sabka Vishwas Scheme. Court held petitioner liable for service tax on immovable property rentals from 2007 under Finance Act, 1994, though lessees unsuccessfully challenged levy before various High Courts. Supreme Court ordered lessees to pay 50% property tax despite not being liable under Finance Act. Impugned order passed by two officers, one not hearing petitioner, violating natural justice. Circular on Sabka Vishwas Scheme unclear on appropriating lessee's deposited amount towards declarant's liability and refund mechanism. Court quashed impugned order, remitting case for fresh orders on merits due to element of doubt.
Impugned order suffered from lack of reasoning regarding variation in service tax estimate between declarant/petitioner and designated authority. 50% of demand confirmed, with petitioner submitting lessee paid said amount eligible for set-off under Sabka Vishwas Scheme. Court held petitioner liable for service tax on immovable property rentals from 2007 under Finance Act, 1994, though lessees unsuccessfully challenged levy before various High Courts. Supreme Court ordered lessees to pay 50% property tax despite not being liable under Finance Act. Impugned order passed by two officers, one not hearing petitioner, violating natural justice. Circular on Sabka Vishwas Scheme unclear on appropriating lessee's deposited amount towards declarant's liability and refund mechanism. Court quashed impugned order, remitting case for fresh orders on merits due to element of doubt.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
