Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
The CESTAT allowed the appeal, holding that the demand for recovery of service tax with interest and penalty based on alleged suppression of material facts was unsustainable. The appellant had filed returns for both halves of FY 2014-15, declaring taxable service value and paying due service tax. The Show Cause Notice failed to establish willful suppression or intent to evade tax, a necessary prerequisite for invoking the extended limitation period. Mere bald allegations were insufficient to justify extended period invocation. Consequently, the demand issued beyond the normal limitation period was barred. The tribunal refrained from addressing other contentions, deciding solely on limitation grounds.
The CESTAT allowed the appeal, holding that the demand for recovery of service tax with interest and penalty based on alleged suppression of material facts was unsustainable. The appellant had filed returns for both halves of FY 2014-15, declaring taxable service value and paying due service tax. The Show Cause Notice failed to establish willful suppression or intent to evade tax, a necessary prerequisite for invoking the extended limitation period. Mere bald allegations were insufficient to justify extended period invocation. Consequently, the demand issued beyond the normal limitation period was barred. The tribunal refrained from addressing other contentions, deciding solely on limitation grounds.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
