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 - Employees were deputed to the assessee - receiving services from the overseas company FFECJ through Dispatch Agreement and Secondment Agreement in deployment of qualified and skilled employees during the said period - The Tribunal noted that the employees deputed to the respondent were under its control and direction, with no employer-employee relationship maintained with the overseas company during the assignment period. They upheld the Revenue’s contention regarding the taxability of the services. However, they ruled against the validity of invoking the extended period of limitation, finding no substantial evidence of suppression of facts by the respondent.
Levy of service tax - Employees were deputed to the assessee - receiving services from the overseas company FFECJ through Dispatch Agreement and Secondment Agreement in deployment of qualified and skilled employees during the said period - The Tribunal noted that the employees deputed to the respondent were under its control and direction, with no employer-employee relationship maintained with the overseas company during the assignment period. They upheld the Revenue’s contention regarding the taxability of the services. However, they ruled against the validity of invoking the extended period of limitation, finding no substantial evidence of suppression of facts by the respondent.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.