Charitable trust income application permits verified capital expenditure but rejects deferred pre-operative claims and requires reconsideration of con...
Reinsurance premium deductions require established regulatory breaches, while independently acquired software qualifies within the computer depreciati...
Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Page of 4801
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
861 to 880 of 96001 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 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
