Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Limitation in oppression and mismanagement proceedings: prior knowledge of removal and dilution barred the challenge, with valuation directions upheld...
Insolvency professional agency governance rules amended to add nominee directors, tighten independent director eligibility, and regulate managing dire...
Service tax demand confirmed solely on the basis of CBDT/Form 26AS and income tax return data was held unsustainable because the Revenue made no independent verification, enquiry, or corroborative proof of taxable services. Mere comparison of returns could not by itself establish liability under the Finance Act, 1994. The extended period of limitation was also held inapplicable because suppression with intent to evade was not proved on the facts, and departmental correspondence did not amount to such suppression. As the demand failed on evidence and limitation, the consequential interest and penalty were also set aside.
Service tax demand confirmed solely on the basis of CBDT/Form 26AS and income tax return data was held unsustainable because the Revenue made no independent verification, enquiry, or corroborative proof of taxable services. Mere comparison of returns could not by itself establish liability under the Finance Act, 1994. The extended period of limitation was also held inapplicable because suppression with intent to evade was not proved on the facts, and departmental correspondence did not amount to such suppression. As the demand failed on evidence and limitation, the consequential interest and penalty were also set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
