Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
Levy of service tax - Business Auxiliary services - incentives received from M/s. Volkswagen and M/s. Castrol India - reverse charge mechanism - The tribunal found that these incentives were related to the sales transaction and not for providing services of promoting business. As the relationship was on a principal-to-principal basis, the appellant was interested in selling more cars for profit, not promoting Volkswagen's or Castrol's business. Hence, no service tax could be levied on these incentives. - Regarding the issue of Service Tax Liability on Forfeited Advance Amount, the Tribunal held that, he forfeited advance amounts were not for providing any service but were penalties for cancellation, thus not liable to service tax.
Levy of service tax - Business Auxiliary services - incentives received from M/s. Volkswagen and M/s. Castrol India - reverse charge mechanism - The tribunal found that these incentives were related to the sales transaction and not for providing services of promoting business. As the relationship was on a principal-to-principal basis, the appellant was interested in selling more cars for profit, not promoting Volkswagen's or Castrol's business. Hence, no service tax could be levied on these incentives. - Regarding the issue of Service Tax Liability on Forfeited Advance Amount, the Tribunal held that, he forfeited advance amounts were not for providing any service but were penalties for cancellation, thus not liable to service tax.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
