Business deductions and transfer pricing issues: tribunal treatment of software write-offs, donation receipts, warranty provisions, and related expens...
Page of 4814
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
2921 to 2940 of 96262 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 and set aside the impugned order, holding that the service tax demand was unsustainable. The Tribunal found the demand rested solely on Form 26AS and third-party data without examination of reasons for variance, exemptions or abatements, and that the appellant had maintained records and sought rectification which remained undecided. The appellant qualified for SSI threshold exemption and filed nil returns accordingly; thus the department's presumption that differential receipts were taxable consideration was impermissible. Invocation of the extended period was held improper and the show-cause notice was time-barred. Consequently the demand and penalty were quashed and the appeal was allowed.
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order, holding that the service tax demand was unsustainable. The Tribunal found the demand rested solely on Form 26AS and third-party data without examination of reasons for variance, exemptions or abatements, and that the appellant had maintained records and sought rectification which remained undecided. The appellant qualified for SSI threshold exemption and filed nil returns accordingly; thus the department's presumption that differential receipts were taxable consideration was impermissible. Invocation of the extended period was held improper and the show-cause notice was time-barred. Consequently the demand and penalty were quashed and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
