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...
Benefit of input service tax credit was denied due to failure to submit Cenvat credit account showing credit taken in books within one year from invoice date. Commissioner (Appeals) should re-examine eligibility for adjustment against demand for 2014-15, 2016-17 & 2017-18 after considering supporting documents. Service tax demand calculated on net receipt basis upheld, except for Rs.47,683/- confirmed after incorrect abatement percentage applied. Extended period of limitation invoked correctly as wrong practice followed cannot be considered disclosure of facts. Order partly set aside for re-determination of Rs.47,683/- demand, adjustment eligibility for certain years, and consequential penalty. Remaining findings upheld as no error substantiated.
Benefit of input service tax credit was denied due to failure to submit Cenvat credit account showing credit taken in books within one year from invoice date. Commissioner (Appeals) should re-examine eligibility for adjustment against demand for 2014-15, 2016-17 & 2017-18 after considering supporting documents. Service tax demand calculated on net receipt basis upheld, except for Rs.47,683/- confirmed after incorrect abatement percentage applied. Extended period of limitation invoked correctly as wrong practice followed cannot be considered disclosure of facts. Order partly set aside for re-determination of Rs.47,683/- demand, adjustment eligibility for certain years, and consequential penalty. Remaining findings upheld as no error substantiated.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
