Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
701 to 720 of 95833 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The CESTAT allowed the appeal by way of remand to the Adjudicating Authority. The appellant raised new grounds in the miscellaneous application which were not considered by the authorities below. To uphold principles of natural justice, the matter was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority to consider the additional grounds raised by the appellant afresh on merits. The appellant had previously accepted the service tax liability by depositing the confirmed demand amount based on a Delhi High Court judgment. However, the CESTAT opined that the department should have an opportunity to contest the new grounds raised by the appellant which are purely legal issues.
The CESTAT allowed the appeal by way of remand to the Adjudicating Authority. The appellant raised new grounds in the miscellaneous application which were not considered by the authorities below. To uphold principles of natural justice, the matter was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority to consider the additional grounds raised by the appellant afresh on merits. The appellant had previously accepted the service tax liability by depositing the confirmed demand amount based on a Delhi High Court judgment. However, the CESTAT opined that the department should have an opportunity to contest the new grounds raised by the appellant which are purely legal issues.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
