Depreciation and routine compliance expenses disallowance did not prove inaccurate particulars or misreporting; penalty sustained only on foreign trav...
Page of 4827
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3461 to 3480 of 96536 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
HC quashed show cause notice due to unreasonable delay in adjudication spanning two decades. Department's internal CERA audit objection and conflicting views among Central Excise Officers led to prolonged inaction until January 2021. Court found petitioner had properly discharged service tax liability under works contract service per Section 65(95)(ZZZA) of Finance Act, 1994. Department's own Statement of Facts acknowledged disagreement with CERA audit findings. HC ordered refund of excess amounts deposited during investigation with 6% interest from payment date. Court affirmed petitioner's right to modify valuation method for service tax payment under Finance Act provisions.
HC quashed show cause notice due to unreasonable delay in adjudication spanning two decades. Department's internal CERA audit objection and conflicting views among Central Excise Officers led to prolonged inaction until January 2021. Court found petitioner had properly discharged service tax liability under works contract service per Section 65(95)(ZZZA) of Finance Act, 1994. Department's own Statement of Facts acknowledged disagreement with CERA audit findings. HC ordered refund of excess amounts deposited during investigation with 6% interest from payment date. Court affirmed petitioner's right to modify valuation method for service tax payment under Finance Act provisions.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
