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...
Petitioner engaged in drilling bore wells for agriculturists claimed exemption under negative list entry of Finance Act, 1994. Court held that to invoke extended period of limitation under proviso to Section 73(1), mandatory requirements contemplated in Act were stated in show cause notice regarding petitioner's liability to pay service tax and penalties. Petitioner was given opportunity to reply and personal hearing. Once show cause notice invoking extended period is issued and inquiry conducted, grounds urged must be challenged through appeal under Act, not by challenging revenue's jurisdiction to issue notice. Availability of alternative efficacious remedy of appeal u/s 85 precludes entertaining writ petition under Article 226. No cogent reasons shown for revenue not providing sufficient cause to invoke extended period. Petition dismissed.
Petitioner engaged in drilling bore wells for agriculturists claimed exemption under negative list entry of Finance Act, 1994. Court held that to invoke extended period of limitation under proviso to Section 73(1), mandatory requirements contemplated in Act were stated in show cause notice regarding petitioner's liability to pay service tax and penalties. Petitioner was given opportunity to reply and personal hearing. Once show cause notice invoking extended period is issued and inquiry conducted, grounds urged must be challenged through appeal under Act, not by challenging revenue's jurisdiction to issue notice. Availability of alternative efficacious remedy of appeal u/s 85 precludes entertaining writ petition under Article 226. No cogent reasons shown for revenue not providing sufficient cause to invoke extended period. Petition dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
