Certificate-of-origin verification procedure governs preferential customs benefits; denial without retroactive verification was set aside with consequ...
Disciplinary Committee jurisdiction and mandatory investigation requirements invalidated cancellation of an insolvency professional's registration and...
Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
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 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
