👍👍👍👍👍👍👍No Extended Limitation When Details Transparently Shared in ST-3 Returns

https://taxguru.in/service-tax/extended-limitation-details-transparently-shared-st-3-returns.html Clipped from: https://taxguru.in/service-tax/extended-limitation-details-transparently-shared-st-3-returns.html Arya Logistics Vs C.C.E. & S.T.-Rajkot (CESTAT Ahmedabad) Introduction: The case of Arya Logistics versus C.C.E. & S.T.-Rajkot has taken the limelight in

👍👍👍👍👍👍👍Extended period of limitation invoked as facts suppressed with intention to evade payment of tax

https://taxguru.in/service-tax/extended-period-limitation-invoked-facts-suppressed-intention-evade-payment-tax.html Clipped from: https://taxguru.in/service-tax/extended-period-limitation-invoked-facts-suppressed-intention-evade-payment-tax.html Senthil Engineering Works Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai) CESTAT Chennai held that extended period of limitation invoked as

👍👍👍👍👍👍👍Extended Period of Limitation cannot be Invoked unless there is Evidence of Fraud or Collusion or Wilful Misstatement: CESTAT

Clipped from: https://www.taxscan.in/extended-period-of-limitation-cannot-be-invoked-unless-there-is-evidence-of-fraud-or-collusion-or-wilful-misstatement-cestat/314873/?utm_source=izooto&utm_medium=push_notifications&utm_campaign=Extended%20Period%20of%20Limitation%20cannot%20be%20Invoked%20unless%20there%20is%20Evidence%20of%20Fraud%20or%20Collusion%20or%20Wilful%20Misstatement:%20CESTAT The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), observed that extended period of limitation cannot be invoked unless there is evidence of

👍Saving clause u/s 174(2)(e) of CGST Act permits initiation of proceedings under service tax post 01.07.2017

https://taxguru.in/goods-and-service-tax/saving-clause-u-s-174-2-e-cgst-act-permits-initiation-proceedings-service-tax-post-01-07-2017.html Clipped from: https://taxguru.in/goods-and-service-tax/saving-clause-u-s-174-2-e-cgst-act-permits-initiation-proceedings-service-tax-post-01-07-2017.html Dev Versha Publication Private Limited and others Vs Union of India and others (Uttarakhand High Court) Uttarakhand High Court held that saving

👍👍👍👍👍👍👍Demand invoking extended period unsustained as notice issued after two years of departmental knowledge

https://taxguru.in/service-tax/demand-invoking-extended-period-unsustained-notice-issued-years-departmental-knowledge.html Clipped from: https://taxguru.in/service-tax/demand-invoking-extended-period-unsustained-notice-issued-years-departmental-knowledge.html Commissioner Service Tax Vs Spicejet Ltd (CESTAT Delhi) CESTAT Delhi held that entire demand invoking extended period of limitation unsustainable as show

👍👍👍👍👍👍👍Bonafide Belief Shields Appellant from Extended Period invocation for Service Tax Liability

https://taxguru.in/service-tax/bonafide-belief-shields-appellant-extended-period-invocation-service-tax-liability.html Clipped from: https://taxguru.in/service-tax/bonafide-belief-shields-appellant-extended-period-invocation-service-tax-liability.html Heena Enterprises Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & ST (CESTAT Ahmedabad) In the case of Heena Enterprises Vs Commissioner of Central Excise &

👍👍👍👍👍Extended Limitation in Service Tax Demand -Unjust if no Proof of Fraud or Evasion

https://taxguru.in/service-tax/extended-limitation-service-tax-demand-unjust-proof-fraud-evasion.html Clipped from: https://taxguru.in/service-tax/extended-limitation-service-tax-demand-unjust-proof-fraud-evasion.html Thakarshi J Likhiya Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & ST (CESTAT Ahmedabad) Introduction: In a noteworthy ruling, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax

Adjudication Order Passed without Allowing Cross-Examination is Gross Violation of Natural Justice: CESTAT quashes Customs Duty Demand

Clipped from: https://www.taxscan.in/adjudication-order-passed-without-allowing-cross-examination-is-gross-violation-of-natural-justice-cestat-quashes-customs-duty-demand/292964/ The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), quashed customs duty demand and observed that the adjudication order passed without

Extended period not invocable in subsequent notice when prior notice already issued on same subject

https://taxguru.in/service-tax/extended-period-invocable-subsequent-notice-prior-notice-issued-subject.html Clipped from: https://taxguru.in/service-tax/extended-period-invocable-subsequent-notice-prior-notice-issued-subject.html M.K. Enterprises Vs Commissioner of CGST & CX (CESTAT Kolkata) CESTAT Kolkata held that the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked

Extended period invocable only if there is suppression of facts with intent to evade tax

Read more at: https://taxguru.in/service-tax/extended-period-invocable-suppression-facts-intent-evade-tax.htmlCopyright © Taxguru.in https://taxguru.in/service-tax/extended-period-invocable-suppression-facts-intent-evade-tax.html lipped from: https://taxguru.in/service-tax/extended-period-invocable-suppression-facts-intent-evade-tax.html Hospitech Management Consultants Pvt. Ltd Vs Commissioner of Service Tax (CESTAT Delhi) CESTAT Delhi held that the

SVLDRS Scheme Applicable to Taxpayers against whom Investigation by Service Tax Dept is pending: Delhi HC

Read More: https://www.taxscan.in/svldrs-scheme-applicable-to-taxpayers-against-whom-investigation-by-service-tax-dept-is-pending-delhi-hc/280855/ Clipped from: https://www.taxscan.in/svldrs-scheme-applicable-to-taxpayers-against-whom-investigation-by-service-tax-dept-is-pending-delhi-hc/280855/ The Delhi High Court recently held that the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS) is applicable to taxpayers against

Addition of loan Amount as Outstanding Balance without Proper Evidence and Documents: ITAT directs AO to Re-adjudicate

Clipped from: https://www.taxscan.in/addition-of-loan-amount-as-outstanding-balance-without-proper-evidence-and-documents-itat-directs-ao-to-re-adjudicate-read-order/281886/ The New Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has directed the Assessing Officer to re-adjudicate the case regarding the addition of a loan amount

1 4 5 6 7 8 11