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...
Appellant challenged levy of service tax on commission paid to foreign agents for export of goods during Sep 2013-Sep 2014 under reverse charge, denial of CENVAT credit, and invocation of extended period of limitation. CESTAT held that mere non-disclosure doesn't amount to wilful suppression to invoke extended limitation period u/s 73(1) proviso of Finance Act. Suppression must be deliberate with intent to evade tax as per Supreme Court's ruling in Pushpam Pharmaceuticals case. Since appellant declared transactions in financial records and no positive act of wilful suppression was established by department, extended period couldn't be invoked. Appeal allowed.
Appellant challenged levy of service tax on commission paid to foreign agents for export of goods during Sep 2013-Sep 2014 under reverse charge, denial of CENVAT credit, and invocation of extended period of limitation. CESTAT held that mere non-disclosure doesn't amount to wilful suppression to invoke extended limitation period u/s 73(1) proviso of Finance Act. Suppression must be deliberate with intent to evade tax as per Supreme Court's ruling in Pushpam Pharmaceuticals case. Since appellant declared transactions in financial records and no positive act of wilful suppression was established by department, extended period couldn't be invoked. Appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
