Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires highway contract benchmarks to reflect operation, maintenance and transfer activities, requiring fresh be...
Failure to produce supporting documents before audit team does not constitute suppression of facts to invoke extended period of limitation u/s 73(1) of Finance Act, 1994. No allegation of statutory contravention with intent to evade tax against assessee. Not producing documents necessary for substantiating claim does not fall under exception of "suppression of facts". No express allegations made in show cause notice regarding suppression of facts. High Court concurred with CESTAT that extended period not correctly invoked as intent to evade tax neither established nor evident. No infirmity in CESTAT's decision rejecting Revenue's contention of invoking extended period under proviso to Section 73(1).
Failure to produce supporting documents before audit team does not constitute suppression of facts to invoke extended period of limitation u/s 73(1) of Finance Act, 1994. No allegation of statutory contravention with intent to evade tax against assessee. Not producing documents necessary for substantiating claim does not fall under exception of "suppression of facts". No express allegations made in show cause notice regarding suppression of facts. High Court concurred with CESTAT that extended period not correctly invoked as intent to evade tax neither established nor evident. No infirmity in CESTAT's decision rejecting Revenue's contention of invoking extended period under proviso to Section 73(1).
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
