Attachment and proclamation of sale of immovable property: limitation treated from financial year end; proclamation held within period, petition dismi...
Second Schedule attachment and validity of a post-notice mortgage: TRO cannot declare mortgage void ab initio; sale and appropriation allowed thereaft...
Limitation for final assessment under sections 144C and 153 treated jointly, resulting in quashing of timebarred assessment order and liberty to reviv...
Deductibility of settlement payments for securities law penalties and treatment of unexplained cash credits in share trading -- Tribunal upholds posit...
Threshold for allottee-initiated insolvency petitions in leasehold real estate upheld; petition admitted after possession letters deemed legally ineff...
Contravention of foreign exchange rules in crossborder diamond payments; appellate tribunal reduces one appellant's penalty for delay and proportional...
Service tax demand based solely on Form 26AS was unsustainable because taxability had to be determined from the statute, relevant records and exemption materials, not inferred from third-party information. The Court held that the authorities failed to examine the plea that the receipts related to government works contracts covered by exemption and therefore did not establish any taxable liability under the Finance Act, 1994. It also held that the extended limitation period could be invoked only on the statutory grounds of fraud, suppression or intent to evade, none of which were properly found. The writ petition was maintainable despite an alternative appeal remedy because the impugned proceedings suffered from jurisdictional error and patent legal infirmity, and the demand, interest and penalty were quashed.
Service tax demand based solely on Form 26AS was unsustainable because taxability had to be determined from the statute, relevant records and exemption materials, not inferred from third-party information. The Court held that the authorities failed to examine the plea that the receipts related to government works contracts covered by exemption and therefore did not establish any taxable liability under the Finance Act, 1994. It also held that the extended limitation period could be invoked only on the statutory grounds of fraud, suppression or intent to evade, none of which were properly found. The writ petition was maintainable despite an alternative appeal remedy because the impugned proceedings suffered from jurisdictional error and patent legal infirmity, and the demand, interest and penalty were quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
