Transfer-pricing treatment of ITeS margins excludes pass-through tax recoveries and separate delayed-receivables interest after working-capital adjust...
Capacity-utilisation adjustments under TNMM can neutralise substantiated COVID-related idle costs where underutilisation materially affects profitabil...
TNMM functional comparability requires excluding rice manufacturers from a pure Basmati rice trader's benchmark and recognising operating export recei...
Working-capital adjustment subsumes delayed-receivable effects in TNMM benchmarking of captive software-development services, avoiding separate notion...
Transfer-pricing comparability requires exclusion of financially illogical super-profit comparables and correction of unsupported annual-report and ma...
Charitable character assessment preserves Section 80G approval despite inclusive spiritual teachings and incidental religious expenditure within the s...
Penalty proceedings for cash-loan acceptance require assessment proceedings and recorded Assessing Officer satisfaction; absent these, the proceedings...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The CESTAT allowed the appeal filed by the assessee (A) and set aside the impugned order of the Commr (A). It held that the invocation of the extended period of limitation under the proviso to s.73(1) of the Finance Act for non-payment of service tax on car parking charges was unsustainable. The Tribunal observed that mere contravention of statutory provisions while filing self-assessed returns, without any positive act indicating fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement or deliberate suppression of facts with intent to evade tax, does not justify recourse to the extended limitation. As the SCN and record did not establish a conscious intent to evade service tax, the preconditions for applying the extended five-year period were not met. Consequently, the demand raised beyond the normal limitation period, along with related consequences, was quashed, and relief was granted to A.
The CESTAT allowed the appeal filed by the assessee (A) and set aside the impugned order of the Commr (A). It held that the invocation of the extended period of limitation under the proviso to s.73(1) of the Finance Act for non-payment of service tax on car parking charges was unsustainable. The Tribunal observed that mere contravention of statutory provisions while filing self-assessed returns, without any positive act indicating fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement or deliberate suppression of facts with intent to evade tax, does not justify recourse to the extended limitation. As the SCN and record did not establish a conscious intent to evade service tax, the preconditions for applying the extended five-year period were not met. Consequently, the demand raised beyond the normal limitation period, along with related consequences, was quashed, and relief was granted to A.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.