Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
Page of 4790
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
141 to 160 of 95794 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 4790
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
