Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
Page of 4786
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
461 to 480 of 95715 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The court held that the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 could not be invoked against the appellant as there was no willful suppression of facts or deliberate attempt to evade payment of tax. The imposition of penalty u/s 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 and Rule 15(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 was not warranted in the absence of malafide intent on the part of the appellant. The case did not fall within the ambit of the proviso to Section 73 or sub-section 4 of Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994.
The court held that the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 could not be invoked against the appellant as there was no willful suppression of facts or deliberate attempt to evade payment of tax. The imposition of penalty u/s 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 and Rule 15(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 was not warranted in the absence of malafide intent on the part of the appellant. The case did not fall within the ambit of the proviso to Section 73 or sub-section 4 of Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
