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 department had initiated action based on the appellant's Income Tax Return (ITR) and compared it with the Service Tax Returns (STR), considering the entire amount shown as 'Sale of Service' in the ITR as the presumptive value of services rendered during the financial year 2015-16. However, the Tribunal held that the ITR could have triggered an inquiry into the non-payment of service tax, if any, but it cannot be the basis for determining the value of services rendered, especially under the extended period of time by invoking fraud, suppression, etc., without any investigation or proof of evasion. The burden of proof lies on the revenue to establish the blameworthy conduct of the appellant. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, considering it a violation of the principles of natural justice.
The department had initiated action based on the appellant's Income Tax Return (ITR) and compared it with the Service Tax Returns (STR), considering the entire amount shown as 'Sale of Service' in the ITR as the presumptive value of services rendered during the financial year 2015-16. However, the Tribunal held that the ITR could have triggered an inquiry into the non-payment of service tax, if any, but it cannot be the basis for determining the value of services rendered, especially under the extended period of time by invoking fraud, suppression, etc., without any investigation or proof of evasion. The burden of proof lies on the revenue to establish the blameworthy conduct of the appellant. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, considering it a violation of the principles of natural justice.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
