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 involves a refund of service tax paid by the appellant for works contract services related to a drinking water supply pipeline project. The issue addressed was whether the activity qualifies as a taxable service under "Work Contract Service." The Tribunal held that the appellant is not liable for service tax as the project was for non-commercial, non-industrial purposes. The refund claims were contested u/s 11B of the Central Excise Act, but the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, stating the service tax was paid under a mistake of law. Additionally, the claim was not barred by unjust enrichment as the appellant bore the tax burden. The Tribunal directed the adjudicating authority to process the refund claim promptly.
The case involves a refund of service tax paid by the appellant for works contract services related to a drinking water supply pipeline project. The issue addressed was whether the activity qualifies as a taxable service under "Work Contract Service." The Tribunal held that the appellant is not liable for service tax as the project was for non-commercial, non-industrial purposes. The refund claims were contested u/s 11B of the Central Excise Act, but the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, stating the service tax was paid under a mistake of law. Additionally, the claim was not barred by unjust enrichment as the appellant bore the tax burden. The Tribunal directed the adjudicating authority to process the refund claim promptly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.