Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
The CESTAT allowed the appeal in part, setting aside confirmation of penalties under s.77 and s.78(1) of the Finance Act, 1994. The Tribunal found the appellant had been granted personal hearing, had filed ST-3 returns and paid the re-determined service tax (including the s.35F pre-deposit as read with s.83), and that the proceedings were based on data furnished by the appellant to the Income Tax authorities. There was no evidence of deliberate suppression, fraud or collusion warranting invocation of the extended limitation proviso. In consequence, penalty imposition was held legally untenable and the impugned order modified accordingly.
The CESTAT allowed the appeal in part, setting aside confirmation of penalties under s.77 and s.78(1) of the Finance Act, 1994. The Tribunal found the appellant had been granted personal hearing, had filed ST-3 returns and paid the re-determined service tax (including the s.35F pre-deposit as read with s.83), and that the proceedings were based on data furnished by the appellant to the Income Tax authorities. There was no evidence of deliberate suppression, fraud or collusion warranting invocation of the extended limitation proviso. In consequence, penalty imposition was held legally untenable and the impugned order modified accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
