Benami transaction and beneficial ownership: documentary and circumstantial evidence show payors were true beneficiaries, resulting in PBPTA consequen...
Denial of Preferential Treatment under SAFTA overturned where unchallenged Country of Origin certificate warranted exemption under Notification benefi...
Continuing offence of money-laundering: discharge set aside and proceedings reinstated where laundering continued after inclusion of predicate offence...
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 4816 
Join Channel 
