Political contribution deductions require assessee-specific proof before cash-back allegations can justify disallowance or unexplained-money additions...
Appellant challenged levy of service tax on commission paid to foreign agents for export of goods during Sep 2013-Sep 2014 under reverse charge, denial of CENVAT credit, and invocation of extended period of limitation. CESTAT held that mere non-disclosure doesn't amount to wilful suppression to invoke extended limitation period u/s 73(1) proviso of Finance Act. Suppression must be deliberate with intent to evade tax as per Supreme Court's ruling in Pushpam Pharmaceuticals case. Since appellant declared transactions in financial records and no positive act of wilful suppression was established by department, extended period couldn't be invoked. Appeal allowed.
Appellant challenged levy of service tax on commission paid to foreign agents for export of goods during Sep 2013-Sep 2014 under reverse charge, denial of CENVAT credit, and invocation of extended period of limitation. CESTAT held that mere non-disclosure doesn't amount to wilful suppression to invoke extended limitation period u/s 73(1) proviso of Finance Act. Suppression must be deliberate with intent to evade tax as per Supreme Court's ruling in Pushpam Pharmaceuticals case. Since appellant declared transactions in financial records and no positive act of wilful suppression was established by department, extended period couldn't be invoked. Appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
Join Channel 
