Bona fide disclosure requirements govern under-reporting penalties, and post-penalty immunity applications cannot secure available statutory protectio...
Certificate-of-origin verification procedure governs preferential customs benefits; denial without retroactive verification was set aside with consequ...
Disciplinary Committee jurisdiction and mandatory investigation requirements invalidated cancellation of an insolvency professional's registration and...
Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1221 to 1240 of 96092 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CESTAT held that service tax demand based solely on Form 26AS and ITR data without corroborative evidence linking income to taxable services was legally unsustainable. The Tribunal found multiple errors in the adjudicating authority's assessment: failure to grant exemption for pre-March 2015 contracts, incorrect computation of taxable value for 2017-18 by considering receipts beyond the relevant period (April-June 2017), and unjustified invocation of the extended limitation period. The Tribunal relied on M/s Piyush Sharma precedent, emphasizing that service tax demands cannot be raised solely on Income Tax Department data without proper investigation establishing taxability. Appeal allowed with direction to reassess liability considering these findings.
CESTAT held that service tax demand based solely on Form 26AS and ITR data without corroborative evidence linking income to taxable services was legally unsustainable. The Tribunal found multiple errors in the adjudicating authority's assessment: failure to grant exemption for pre-March 2015 contracts, incorrect computation of taxable value for 2017-18 by considering receipts beyond the relevant period (April-June 2017), and unjustified invocation of the extended limitation period. The Tribunal relied on M/s Piyush Sharma precedent, emphasizing that service tax demands cannot be raised solely on Income Tax Department data without proper investigation establishing taxability. Appeal allowed with direction to reassess liability considering these findings.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
