Levy of penalty u/s 78A of FA - tax not deposited - The ...

Finance Act Section 78A Penalty Dispute: Authority Misjudged Intentional vs. Uncontrollable Nonpayment; Insufficient Evidence Against Appellant.

September 30, 2021

Case Laws Service Tax AT

Levy of penalty u/s 78A of FA - tax not deposited - The authority has miserably failed to distinguish the nonpayment of tax for the reasons beyond the control of the assessee from the situation where the assessee has failed to deposit tax with the sole intention to not to deposit the same. Section 78 / 78A can be attracted only in the later situation - Mere oral submission of an employee (Finance Director) that he was acting under the guidance of the appellant cannot be fully sufficient for holding at least that the appellant had the knowledge and the intent to not to make the impugned payment. - AT

View Source

← Previous Next →

Levy of penalty u/s 78A of FA - tax not deposited - The ...

Finance Act Section 78A Penalty Dispute: Authority Misjudged Intentional vs. Uncontrollable Nonpayment; Insufficient Evidence Against Appellant.

September 30, 2021

Case Laws Service Tax AT

You may also like:

Levy of penalty u/s 78 - entire facts were available on record and on this there is no dispute; nor is there any contrary finding by the adjudicating authority. The...

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) can be imposed for an ad-hoc disallowance of 20% of expenses made by the Assessing Officer....

Extended period of limitation - demand of service tax with penalty - The provisions of section 73(4) of the Finance Act are not applicable because intention of the...

CESTAT Chennai held that penalty u/s 114 Customs Act was not imposed on Respondents for smuggling undeclared cigarettes concealed with gypsum plaster. Penalty was...

Initiation of CIRP - pre-existing dispute - the Adjudicating Authority has erred by not considering the various e-mails communication exchanged between the corporate...

Levy of penalty - In the light of section 73(4) of Finance Act, 1994, which is the sole ground for denying recourse to section 73(3) of Finance Act, 1994, it is clear...

Non-discharge of service tax - extended period invoked, service tax demanded - penalties imposed u/ss 77 and 78 of Finance Act, 1994 - appellant providing taxable...

The Appellate Tribunal upheld the Adjudicating Authority's rejection of the Section 9 application filed by the Operational Creditor. The key points are: The Operational...

The case involved a dispute over penalty imposition u/ss 271(1)(c) versus 271(1B) for additions related to estimated income from share trading transactions. The...

Finance Bill, 2015 - service tax - Substantial overall in levy of penalty u/s 76 and 78

ST - Whether the penalty imposable under the Finance Act, 1994 is automatic – Held no - HC

CIRP - Rejection of Section 9 Application on the ground of pre-existing dispute - The dispute stemmed from services provided by the Operational Creditor to the Corporate...

Initiation of CIRP - The Corporate Debtor is not to raise bogie of disputes but there has to be real substantial dispute. The existence of dispute when the Demand Notice...

Initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - pre-existing dispute or not - the disputed invoices were rightly sent to the respondent -...

Initiation of CIRP - pre-existence of dispute - There was no dispute existing prior to the first demand notice and only disputes raised prior to the first demand notice...

Quick Updates: