Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
Defined public benefit can retain charitable character; registration renewal requires examining genuine activities and legal compliance, not surplus a...
Capital reduction is distinct from share buy-back, preventing buy-back tax; restructuring interest and related business deductions also survive scruti...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1481 to 1500 of 96333 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
HC held that service tax liability cannot be inferred from Form 26AS alone; tax must rest on a statutory basis and a proper assessment under the Finance Act, 1994. Because the adjudicating authority relied on income-tax data without determining whether the receipts were taxable or exempt healthcare receipts, the demand was unsustainable. It also held that the extended limitation under the proviso to section 73(1) requires the statutory preconditions, including a clear finding of wilful intent to evade tax; mere non-filing of returns or non-production of documents was insufficient, so the notice and adjudication lacked jurisdiction. The writ was maintainable despite an alternative remedy, and the show cause notice, order-in-original, interest and penalties were quashed.
HC held that service tax liability cannot be inferred from Form 26AS alone; tax must rest on a statutory basis and a proper assessment under the Finance Act, 1994. Because the adjudicating authority relied on income-tax data without determining whether the receipts were taxable or exempt healthcare receipts, the demand was unsustainable. It also held that the extended limitation under the proviso to section 73(1) requires the statutory preconditions, including a clear finding of wilful intent to evade tax; mere non-filing of returns or non-production of documents was insufficient, so the notice and adjudication lacked jurisdiction. The writ was maintainable despite an alternative remedy, and the show cause notice, order-in-original, interest and penalties were quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.