Timing mismatch in income recognition requires verification whether receipts were already taxed in an earlier year; matter remitted for fresh examinat...
FOB transaction value and export incentives: customs valuation cannot override contractual export benefits or support confiscation without valid proof...
Page of 4824
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
4781 to 4800 of 96463 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 
TaxTMI 
of 4824 
Join Channel 
