Faceless reassessment jurisdiction turned on retrospective AO definition, with later faceless-assessment changes treated as clarificatory and procedur...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
2121 to 2140 of 96100 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CESTAT allowed the appeal, holding that the demand raised against the appellant was unsustainable. The tribunal found that the appellant qualified as a funded partner of NSDC for skill development programmes, and thus was eligible for exemption under Notification No. 25/2012-ST. The adjudicating authority's rejection based on absence of a partnership certificate was deemed incorrect. The tribunal emphasized that the loan was specifically extended for skill development programmes, and the exemption should be interpreted beneficially, consistent with the Supreme Court's guidance on interpreting beneficial notifications. The demand raised solely on discrepancies between tax returns, without independent investigation, was set aside.
CESTAT allowed the appeal, holding that the demand raised against the appellant was unsustainable. The tribunal found that the appellant qualified as a funded partner of NSDC for skill development programmes, and thus was eligible for exemption under Notification No. 25/2012-ST. The adjudicating authority's rejection based on absence of a partnership certificate was deemed incorrect. The tribunal emphasized that the loan was specifically extended for skill development programmes, and the exemption should be interpreted beneficially, consistent with the Supreme Court's guidance on interpreting beneficial notifications. The demand raised solely on discrepancies between tax returns, without independent investigation, was set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
