Faceless reassessment jurisdiction turned on retrospective AO definition, with later faceless-assessment changes treated as clarificatory and procedur...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
2121 to 2140 of 96100 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The ITAT recalled its earlier order because it had decided an issue not arising from the Revenue's appeal, creating an apparent factual error. On rehearing, it held that unpaid service tax liability was not disallowable under section 43B where the assessee had not claimed any deduction and the amount had not been debited to the profit and loss account. Following the co-ordinate Bench ruling for another year, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's challenge and dismissed the appeal.
The ITAT recalled its earlier order because it had decided an issue not arising from the Revenue's appeal, creating an apparent factual error. On rehearing, it held that unpaid service tax liability was not disallowable under section 43B where the assessee had not claimed any deduction and the amount had not been debited to the profit and loss account. Following the co-ordinate Bench ruling for another year, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's challenge and dismissed the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
