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 CESTAT held that service tax cannot be levied on the value of goods sold during execution of a works contract. The taxable value is the value of services rendered, determined as per Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Rule 2A of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006. The Department failed to identify the nature of services and discharge its onus before confirming the demand. Out of the total consideration, the amount pertaining to sale of goods was excluded from the taxable value. Service tax was payable only on 40% of the remaining amount as per the specified percentage. As no tax remained unpaid, no penalty u/ss 78 or 77(2) was imposable. The appeal was allowed.
The CESTAT held that service tax cannot be levied on the value of goods sold during execution of a works contract. The taxable value is the value of services rendered, determined as per Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Rule 2A of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006. The Department failed to identify the nature of services and discharge its onus before confirming the demand. Out of the total consideration, the amount pertaining to sale of goods was excluded from the taxable value. Service tax was payable only on 40% of the remaining amount as per the specified percentage. As no tax remained unpaid, no penalty u/ss 78 or 77(2) was imposable. The appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
