Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
Threshold exemption excludes exempt services, while stamp-paper purchases avoid reverse charge; consequential service tax penalties were also set asid...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1381 to 1400 of 96174 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Receipts from a composite activity involving both sale of goods and supply of services could not be taxed as pure service income without first classifying the activity as works contract and considering the composition scheme; the demand on the full receipt value was therefore unsustainable. The appellant was also found eligible for the small service provider threshold exemption for the relevant year, supporting a bona fide belief that no service tax was payable. In that position, suppression with intent to evade was not established, the extended period of limitation was unavailable, and the demand, interest and penalties were barred by limitation.
Receipts from a composite activity involving both sale of goods and supply of services could not be taxed as pure service income without first classifying the activity as works contract and considering the composition scheme; the demand on the full receipt value was therefore unsustainable. The appellant was also found eligible for the small service provider threshold exemption for the relevant year, supporting a bona fide belief that no service tax was payable. In that position, suppression with intent to evade was not established, the extended period of limitation was unavailable, and the demand, interest and penalties were barred by limitation.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.