Authority rules B+G+31 service apartment is commercial building construction, not multi-storey residential for tax classification under RERA definitio...
Resale price method upheld for distribution; assessee's margins accepted and certain transfer-pricing adjustments deleted due to documented reimbursem...
Page of 4826
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
9821 to 9840 of 96510 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CESTAT set aside the impugned adjudicatory order and allowed the appeal, finding the demand unsustainable. The Tribunal held the adjudicating and appellate authorities issued a non-speaking order, failed to appreciate reconciliation documents and evidence, and erred in taxability analysis - including wrongly treating Public Village Telephone receipts as taxable, misapplying Rule 6(1) of STR 1994, and disregarding rounding and arrears valuation issues. Because the demand was inflated and the appellant had demonstrated nil liability on the merits, the CESTAT quashed the demand and remitted no further relief, concluding the departmental action lacked adequate reasoning and violated principles of natural justice.
CESTAT set aside the impugned adjudicatory order and allowed the appeal, finding the demand unsustainable. The Tribunal held the adjudicating and appellate authorities issued a non-speaking order, failed to appreciate reconciliation documents and evidence, and erred in taxability analysis - including wrongly treating Public Village Telephone receipts as taxable, misapplying Rule 6(1) of STR 1994, and disregarding rounding and arrears valuation issues. Because the demand was inflated and the appellant had demonstrated nil liability on the merits, the CESTAT quashed the demand and remitted no further relief, concluding the departmental action lacked adequate reasoning and violated principles of natural justice.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.