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" ?
Service tax demand cannot rest on Form 26AS alone; taxability must be determined under the governing statute, and receipts reflected in income tax data do not by themselves establish liability. The Court held the demand unsustainable because the authority failed to examine the nature of services and did not make a lawful finding that the services were taxable. It also held that the extended limitation under the proviso to Section 73(1) requires a conclusive finding of fraud, suppression or intent to evade, which was absent; the extended period was therefore invalid and the proceedings unauthorized. The writ petition remained maintainable despite an alternative remedy because the challenge disclosed a jurisdictional error apparent on the record.
Service tax demand cannot rest on Form 26AS alone; taxability must be determined under the governing statute, and receipts reflected in income tax data do not by themselves establish liability. The Court held the demand unsustainable because the authority failed to examine the nature of services and did not make a lawful finding that the services were taxable. It also held that the extended limitation under the proviso to Section 73(1) requires a conclusive finding of fraud, suppression or intent to evade, which was absent; the extended period was therefore invalid and the proceedings unauthorized. The writ petition remained maintainable despite an alternative remedy because the challenge disclosed a jurisdictional error apparent on the record.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.