Pre-amendment reassessment limitation bars late notices under the preserved regime, invalidating consequential reassessment for affected earlier asses...
Cash-sales explanations for bank deposits require documentary reconciliation; reassessment notice survived where effective response time was available...
Functional comparability in transfer pricing prevents ad hoc arm's length adjustments where functions, assets, risks and reliable comparables are unes...
Contingency expenses, exempt-income disallowance, and royalty benchmarking: unsupported adjustments were deleted under consistent accounting and trans...
CESTAT set aside service tax demand of Rs.5,54,77,142/- with interest against appellant, ruling the Show Cause Notice void ab initio as it was served on 30.12.2022 for period 2012-16, exceeding five-year limitation under Section 73(1) Finance Act, 1994. The Tribunal held demand based solely on Form 26AS and Income Tax returns without proper investigation was legally unsustainable, requiring corroborative evidence per established precedent. Extended limitation period invocation failed as appellant filed nil returns from October 2013-March 2014 without departmental objection, establishing no suppression with intent to evade tax. Section 78 penalty was set aside, but penalties under Sections 77(1)(c)(ii), 77(1)(c)(iii) and 77(2) were upheld for failure to file subsequent periodic returns despite claimed exemption eligibility under N/N. 25/2012-S.T.
CESTAT set aside service tax demand of Rs.5,54,77,142/- with interest against appellant, ruling the Show Cause Notice void ab initio as it was served on 30.12.2022 for period 2012-16, exceeding five-year limitation under Section 73(1) Finance Act, 1994. The Tribunal held demand based solely on Form 26AS and Income Tax returns without proper investigation was legally unsustainable, requiring corroborative evidence per established precedent. Extended limitation period invocation failed as appellant filed nil returns from October 2013-March 2014 without departmental objection, establishing no suppression with intent to evade tax. Section 78 penalty was set aside, but penalties under Sections 77(1)(c)(ii), 77(1)(c)(iii) and 77(2) were upheld for failure to file subsequent periodic returns despite claimed exemption eligibility under N/N. 25/2012-S.T.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4918 
