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...
The case before CESTAT Bangalore involved a refund claim for Service Tax paid under protest for Consultancy Services received from abroad under reverse charge mechanism. The respondent deposited the tax, interest, and penalty within the prescribed time period. The absence of evidence showing payments made under protest led to the claim being considered time-barred. The respondent had paid the tax based on an audit letter and had informed the authorities accordingly. As the tax was paid under the relevant provisions without any mistake of law. The decision upheld the provisions of u/s 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appeal by the Revenue was allowed.
The case before CESTAT Bangalore involved a refund claim for Service Tax paid under protest for Consultancy Services received from abroad under reverse charge mechanism. The respondent deposited the tax, interest, and penalty within the prescribed time period. The absence of evidence showing payments made under protest led to the claim being considered time-barred. The respondent had paid the tax based on an audit letter and had informed the authorities accordingly. As the tax was paid under the relevant provisions without any mistake of law. The decision upheld the provisions of u/s 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appeal by the Revenue was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.