Concerned authorities have justified issuance of Show Cause Notice by invoking extended period of limitation, but for a mere allegation that there was suppression. It is very much settled position of law that allegations, howsoever strong, cannot take place of proof.
Malik Network & Computer P. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) One of the controversies in the present case arises towards computation of limitation period under Section 153C of the Act for the purposes of issuance of notice and assessment thereon. As per Section 153A of the Act (in the case of searched persons), the limitation […]
Undisputedly investment been made out of part of sale consideration. Therefore, simply because sale deed been executed subsequently, section 54F deduction cannot be denied
Operational Energy Group India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai) Issue whether service tax is required to be discharged on operational charges by the appellant has already been examined and decided in favour of the appellant by this Bench in the appellant’s own case vide Final Order No. 40104/2019 dated […]
Paul Gerard Jenner Vs ITO (ITAT Dehradun) The appeal has been summarily dismissed by the ld. CIT(A) treating the appeal filed in manual Form as invalid and holding that the assessee was mandatorily required to file the appeal electronically. The assessee could not submit the appeal in electronic Form/online as it had to be verified […]
Messrs Darcy Reservoir Consultancy Services P Ltd Vs C.S.T. Service Tax (CESTAT Ahmedabad) CESTAT gone through the records, various submissions made and the case laws cited before us. We find that the case laws cited (Supra) by the appellant squarely covers their activities under ‘Survey And Exploration Of Minerals Service’ and Department has sought to […]
Prakash Tatoba Toraskar Vs ITO (Bombay High Court) In this case initial notice under Section 148 was in the name of the deceased and so was the subsequent communication dated 20 May 2022 purporting to be a notice in terms of Section 148A(b), it is settled law that notice issued under Section 148 of the […]
Pranesh Dealmark Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & ors. (Calcutta High Court) HC held that impugned notice has been issued in the name of the company which has already been amalgamated in.2020 and that the department has been intimated about this amalgamation which is matters of record and such notice in the name of […]
Triumph India Software Services Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Tax (CESTAT Bangalore) Managing Director of the appellant-company, appeared in person and submitted that she was the Managing Director of the Company at the relevant time. Due to financial difficulties, they could not pay service tax as submitted during investigation. Regarding the appellant’s responsibility to […]
Sos Finance Vs C.S.T. Service Tax (CESTAT Ahmedabad) Limited issue to be decided in the present case is that whether the appellants are liable for penalty under Section 76 & 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. As regard, the imposition of penalty under Section 76 in the present case, I find the issue is settled […]
