https://taxguru.in/income-tax/reopening-based-borrowed-satisfaction-independent-satisfaction-bad-in-law.html Clipped from: https://taxguru.in/income-tax/reopening-based-borrowed-satisfaction-independent-satisfaction-bad-in-law.html Paresh Babubhai Bahalani Vs ITO (Gujarat High Court) Gujarat High Court held that reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Income
Category: Service Tax
Extended Period Demand Unsustainable as Scrutiny Should Have Been Timely
https://taxguru.in/service-tax/extended-period-invocable-demand-based-records-scrutinized-time-limit.html Clipped from: https://taxguru.in/service-tax/extended-period-invocable-demand-based-records-scrutinized-time-limit.html Right Resource Management Service Vs Commissioner of Central Goods And Service Tax (CESTAT Delhi) CESTAT Delhi held that demand invoking extended period
Invalid Service Tax Demand: Form 26AS Basis, No Investigation
https://taxguru.in/service-tax/service-tax-demand-based-form-26-income-tax-department-investigation-invalid.html Clipped from: https://taxguru.in/service-tax/service-tax-demand-based-form-26-income-tax-department-investigation-invalid.html Piyush Sharma Vs Commissioner of CGST & CX (CESTAT Kolkata) The CESTAT, Kolkata in M/s. Piyush Sharma v. Commissioner of CGST & CX,
Mere suppression of facts not enough for invoking extended period of limitation
https://taxguru.in/service-tax/mere-suppression-facts-enough-invoking-extended-period-limitation.html Clipped from: https://taxguru.in/service-tax/mere-suppression-facts-enough-invoking-extended-period-limitation.html Dinesh Chandra R Agarwal Infracon Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of CGST & C.Ex – Gandhinagar (CESTAT Ahmedabad) CESTAT Ahmedabad held that mere
Limitation Period Extension for Cenvat Credit Demand requires Suppression of Facts
https://taxguru.in/excise-duty/limitation-period-extension-cenvat-credit-demand-requires-suppression-facts.html Clipped from: https://taxguru.in/excise-duty/limitation-period-extension-cenvat-credit-demand-requires-suppression-facts.html C.C.E. Ahmedabad-I Vs Chiripal Industries Limited (CESTAT Ahmedabad) Introduction: The recent case of C.C.E. Ahmedabad-I vs. Chiripal Industries Limited saw the Customs, Excise,
Service Tax Demand Invalid Without Specific Service Category in SCN
https://taxguru.in/service-tax/service-tax-demand-invalid-specific-service-category-scn.html Clipped from: https://taxguru.in/service-tax/service-tax-demand-invalid-specific-service-category-scn.html K. Mayakrishnan Vs Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax (CESTAT Chennai) CESTAT Chennai Rules in Favor of Assessee: Service Tax Demand
Invocation of Extended Period of Limitation is not Valid In the absence of Deliberate Attempt to suppress or to miss declare Value of service: CESTAT
Clipped from: https://www.taxscan.in/invocation-of-extended-period-of-limitation-is-not-valid-in-the-absence-of-deliberate-attempt-to-suppress-or-to-miss-declare-value-of-service-cestat/342691/?utm_source=izooto&utm_medium=push_notifications&utm_campaign=Invocation%20of%20Extended%20Period%20of%20Limitation%20is%20not%20Valid%20In%20the%20absence%20of%20Deliberate%20Attempt%C2%A0%20to%20suppress%20or%20to%20miss%20declare%20Value%20of%20service:%20CESTAT The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal(CESTAT) has held that invocation of an extended period of limitation is not valid
👍👍👍👍👍👍👍Imposition of penalty u/s 78 without intention to evade payment of tax untenable
https://taxguru.in/service-tax/imposition-penalty-u-s-78-intention-evade-payment-tax-untenable.html Clipped from: https://taxguru.in/service-tax/imposition-penalty-u-s-78-intention-evade-payment-tax-untenable.html Bharat Aluminium Company Limited Vs Commissioner (CESTAT Delhi) CESTAT Delhi held that imposition of penalty under section 78 of the Finance Act
Extended period of limitation cannot be invoked as issue involved interpretation of law
https://taxguru.in/service-tax/extended-period-limitation-invoked-issue-involved-interpretation-law.html Clipped from: https://taxguru.in/service-tax/extended-period-limitation-invoked-issue-involved-interpretation-law.html Bharat Electronics Limited Vs Commissioner of G.S.T. and Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai) CESTAT Chennai held that invocation of extended period of limitation
👍👍👍👍👍👍😉Extended Limitation Period Not Universally Applicable; Context Matters: SC
https://taxguru.in/excise-duty/extended-limitation-period-universally-applicable-context-matters-sc.html Clipped from: https://taxguru.in/excise-duty/extended-limitation-period-universally-applicable-context-matters-sc.html Commissioner of CGST And Central Excise Vs Birla Corporation Limited (Supreme Court of India) The Supreme Court of India recently addressed the issue of invoking the
👍👍👍👍👍👍👍Service tax demands based on discrepancies between ST-3 Returns & balance sheets
https://taxguru.in/service-tax/service-tax-demands-based-discrepancies-st-3-returns-balance-sheets.html Clipped from: https://taxguru.in/service-tax/service-tax-demands-based-discrepancies-st-3-returns-balance-sheets.html Indian Machine Tools Manufacturers Association Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Chandigarh) Introduction: In the case of Indian Machine Tools Manufacturers Association (IMTMA)
👍👍👍👍👍👍👍Calculation Sheets not proof to Assume Collection of Service Tax: CESTAT quashes Service Tax demand
Clipped from: https://www.taxscan.in/calculation-sheets-not-proof-to-assume-collection-of-service-tax-cestat-quashes-service-tax-demand/324775/ The Chandigarh Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), quashed service tax demand on Construction Services and observed that calculation sheets
👍👍👍👍👍👍👍Mere Non-disclosure of Receipts in Service Tax Return does not mean Intent to Evade Payment of Service Tax: CESTAT
Clipped from: https://www.taxscan.in/mere-non-disclosure-of-receipts-in-service-tax-return-does-not-mean-intent-to-evade-payment-of-service-tax-cestat/324778/ The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), observed that mere non-disclosure of receipts in service tax return does
👍👍👍👍👍👍👍 Assessee’s Genuine Belief: Extended Period Inapplicable
https://taxguru.in/excise-duty/extended-period-invocable-bonafidely-believed-processes-doesnt-amount-manufacture.html Clipped from: https://taxguru.in/excise-duty/extended-period-invocable-bonafidely-believed-processes-doesnt-amount-manufacture.html Biswajit Saha Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Kolkata) CESTAT Kolkata held that appellant were under the bonafide belief that processes undertaken
👍👍👍👍👍👍👍SCNs Must be Adjudicated Within Reasonable Time as Mandated u/s 73(4)(B) of Finance Act; Bombay High Court Upholds Principle of “Lex Dilationes Abhorret”
Clipped from: https://www.taxscan.in/scns-must-be-adjudicated-within-reasonable-time-as-mandated-u-s-734b-of-finance-act-bombay-high-court-upholds-principle-of-lex-dilationes-abhorret/321554/ The High Court of Bombay has held that Show Cause Notices (SCNs) must be adjudicated by the proper officers within a reasonable time
Bombay High Court Quashes 25 Year Old Show Cause Notice Citing Inordinate Delay in Adjudicating Notice & Inability to Locate Case Records; Allows Refund with Interest for Amount Paid Under Protest
Clipped from: https://www.taxscan.in/bombay-high-court-quashes-25-year-old-show-cause-notice-citing-inordinate-delay-in-adjudicating-notice-allows-refund-with-interest-for-amount-paid-under-protest/321322/?utm_source=izooto&utm_medium=push_notifications&utm_campaign=Bombay%20High%20Court%20Quashes%2025%20Year%20Old%20Show%20Cause%20Notice%20Citing%20Inordinate%20Delay%20in%20Adjudicating%20Notice%20&%20Inability%20to%20Locate%20Case%20Records;%20Allows%20Refu The High Court of Bombay has quashed a 25 year old Show Cause Notice (SCN) issued by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Mumbai-III, and
👍👍👍👍👍👍👍Non-allowance to cross-examination person whose statement is relied upon makes entire adjudication proceedings bad
https://taxguru.in/custom-duty/non-allowance-cross-examination-person-statement-relied-entire-adjudication-proceedings-bad.html Clipped from: https://taxguru.in/custom-duty/non-allowance-cross-examination-person-statement-relied-entire-adjudication-proceedings-bad.html Ajay Saraogi Vs Union of India (Calcutta High Court) Calcutta High Court held that initiation of adjudication proceeding without allowing cross-examination of
👍👍👍👍👍👍👍Non-Receipt of Service Tax Order due to Lack of Communication between Husband and Wife: Madras HC Condones Delay of 455 Days in filing Service Tax Appeal
Clipped from: https://www.taxscan.in/non-receipt-of-service-tax-order-due-to-lack-of-communication-between-husband-and-wife-madras-hc-condones-delay-of-455-days-in-filing-service-tax-appeal/318108/?utm_source=izooto&utm_medium=push_notifications&utm_campaign=Non-Receipt%20of%20Service%20Tax%20Order%20due%20to%20Lack%20of%20Communication%20between%20Husband%20and%20Wife:%20Madras%20HC%20Condones%20Delay%20of%20455%20Days%20in%20filing%20Service%20Tax%20App The Madras High Court condoned delay of 455 Days in filing Service Tax Appeal on the ground of non-receipt of Service Tax Order
Burden Lies on Assessee to Prove that his Case Falls under Exemption Notification: CESTAT confirms Service Tax Demand on Restaurant Service
Read More: https://www.taxscan.in/burden-lies-on-assessee-to-prove-that-his-case-falls-under-exemption-notification-cestat-confirms-service-tax-demand-on-restaurant-service/317458/ Clipped from: https://www.taxscan.in/burden-lies-on-assessee-to-prove-that-his-case-falls-under-exemption-notification-cestat-confirms-service-tax-demand-on-restaurant-service/317458/?utm_source=izooto&utm_medium=push_notifications&utm_campaign=Burden%20Lies%20on%20Assessee%20to%20Prove%20that%20his%20Case%20Falls%20under%20Exemption%20Notification:%20CESTAT%20confirms%20Service%20Tax%20Demand%20on%20Restaurant%20Service The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), confirmed service tax demand on restaurant service and observed
👍👍👍👍👍👍👍No Recording of Service of Notice: ITAT Sets Aside Revision Order
https://taxguru.in/income-tax/recording-service-notice-itat-sets-aside-revision-order.html Clipped from: https://taxguru.in/income-tax/recording-service-notice-itat-sets-aside-revision-order.html Citron Infraprojects Ltd. Vs PCIT (ITAT Mumbai) Introduction: In a recent judgment dated 27th July 2023, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai
aniltikotekar4sme.com 