Inaccurate-particulars penalties fail where transfer-pricing documentation shows good faith and due diligence, and underlying capital-gains additions ...
Transfer-pricing tolerance for software sub-licensing falls within the services range, eliminating the adjustment and requiring TDS-credit verificatio...
Customs Broker due diligence requires prescribed KYC, not detecting misdeclarations discoverable only through physical examination, defeating licence ...
E-filing system failure permits exclusion of affected time in insolvency appeals, preventing tribunal technology defects from defeating timely filings...
Pre-existing disputes over outcome-based professional fees can bar Section 9 insolvency proceedings where contractual entitlement requires investigati...
Corresponding scheduled offences preserve money-laundering jurisdiction despite repeal of the central corruption provision where conduct remains cover...
Page of 4888
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
741 to 760 of 97755 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CESTAT adjudicated a service tax dispute involving compensation for lost drilling equipment. The tribunal held that compensation for "Lost-in-Hole" items constitutes accidental damages not relatable to service provisions and therefore cannot be included in taxable service value. The Additional Director General's attempt to invoke extended limitation period was rejected, as there was no willful suppression or intent to evade tax. The audit records demonstrated transparency, and mere procedural oversight did not justify extended limitation. Consequently, the tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the tax demand for both the standard and extended periods based on the absence of fraudulent intent and improper valuation of taxable services.
CESTAT adjudicated a service tax dispute involving compensation for lost drilling equipment. The tribunal held that compensation for "Lost-in-Hole" items constitutes accidental damages not relatable to service provisions and therefore cannot be included in taxable service value. The Additional Director General's attempt to invoke extended limitation period was rejected, as there was no willful suppression or intent to evade tax. The audit records demonstrated transparency, and mere procedural oversight did not justify extended limitation. Consequently, the tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the tax demand for both the standard and extended periods based on the absence of fraudulent intent and improper valuation of taxable services.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.