Transfer-pricing treatment of ITeS margins excludes pass-through tax recoveries and separate delayed-receivables interest after working-capital adjust...
Capacity-utilisation adjustments under TNMM can neutralise substantiated COVID-related idle costs where underutilisation materially affects profitabil...
TNMM functional comparability requires excluding rice manufacturers from a pure Basmati rice trader's benchmark and recognising operating export recei...
Working-capital adjustment subsumes delayed-receivable effects in TNMM benchmarking of captive software-development services, avoiding separate notion...
Transfer-pricing comparability requires exclusion of financially illogical super-profit comparables and correction of unsupported annual-report and ma...
Charitable character assessment preserves Section 80G approval despite inclusive spiritual teachings and incidental religious expenditure within the s...
Penalty proceedings for cash-loan acceptance require assessment proceedings and recorded Assessing Officer satisfaction; absent these, the proceedings...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The Tribunal held that the extended period of limitation of five years under proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act could not have been invoked in the present case. The Tribunal observed that for invoking the extended period, at least one of the five elements of fraud, collusion, wilful mis-statement, suppression of facts or contravention with intent to evade payment of service tax must be established. Mere difference of opinion between the department and the assessee regarding leviability of duty does not amount to wilful suppression of facts. In the present case, the show cause notice was issued beyond the normal period of one year, without invoking the proviso. The facts were already in the knowledge of the department through public documents and earlier show cause notices. The issue involved interpretation of law and there was no suppression of facts with intent to evade service tax.
The Tribunal held that the extended period of limitation of five years under proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act could not have been invoked in the present case. The Tribunal observed that for invoking the extended period, at least one of the five elements of fraud, collusion, wilful mis-statement, suppression of facts or contravention with intent to evade payment of service tax must be established. Mere difference of opinion between the department and the assessee regarding leviability of duty does not amount to wilful suppression of facts. In the present case, the show cause notice was issued beyond the normal period of one year, without invoking the proviso. The facts were already in the knowledge of the department through public documents and earlier show cause notices. The issue involved interpretation of law and there was no suppression of facts with intent to evade service tax.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.