https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778186 CESTAT New Delhi - AT allowed the appeal, quashing the impugned order and setting aside the entire demand. The tribunal held that amounts for April 2010-March 2011 lay outside the extended five-year period and that for April 2011-June 2012 the adjudicating authorities failed to record any findings justifying invocation of the extended limitation period. In the absence of evidence showing wilful suppression or intent, invocation of the extended period and penalty under Section 78 were not sustainable. Claims relating to Renting of Immovable Property and C&F Agency services were not contested and are not before the tribunal. en-us Wed, 10 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 12 Sep 2025 08:45:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778186 CESTAT New Delhi - AT allowed the appeal, quashing the impugned order and setting aside the entire demand. The tribunal held that amounts for April 2010-March 2011 lay outside the extended five-year period and that for April 2011-June 2012 the adjudicating authorities failed to record any findings justifying invocation of the extended limitation period. In the absence of evidence showing wilful suppression or intent, invocation of the extended period and penalty under Section 78 were not sustainable. Claims relating to Renting of Immovable Property and C&F Agency services were not contested and are not before the tribunal. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 10 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778186