Condonation of Delay: directoral disputes and pending company proceedings can constitute reasonable cause, allowing a belated return to be treated as ...
Revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 upheld; faceless assessments subject to revision when AO fails requisite enquiries, remitted for fresh asse...
Limited scope of processing under section 143(1): enhancement without show cause is unsustainable; remand for residency, taxation and TDS verification...
Page of 4826
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
5441 to 5460 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" ?
Dominant issue: whether extended limitation under s.73(1) Finance Act applies for alleged suppression. Held that "suppression of facts" requires wilful concealment with intent to evade tax, and mere disclosure in published accounts and an unelaborated allegation in the notice cannot sustain extended limitation; extended period cannot be invoked. Substantive issue: whether amounts under two development agreements attract service tax. Held that transfer of undivided land interest to developers was in consideration of the developers' payment and constituted transfer of ownership, not a taxable service; therefore those receipts are not leviable. Miscellaneous receipts shown under s.194J are not automatically taxable and, even if taxable, fell below the annual threshold - no service tax liability; impugned order set aside. - CESTAT
Dominant issue: whether extended limitation under s.73(1) Finance Act applies for alleged suppression. Held that "suppression of facts" requires wilful concealment with intent to evade tax, and mere disclosure in published accounts and an unelaborated allegation in the notice cannot sustain extended limitation; extended period cannot be invoked. Substantive issue: whether amounts under two development agreements attract service tax. Held that transfer of undivided land interest to developers was in consideration of the developers' payment and constituted transfer of ownership, not a taxable service; therefore those receipts are not leviable. Miscellaneous receipts shown under s.194J are not automatically taxable and, even if taxable, fell below the annual threshold - no service tax liability; impugned order set aside. - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.