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...
CESTAT ruled in favor of appellant regarding service tax liability on trailer services. The tribunal determined that since effective control and possession of trailers were transferred to clients for fixed payments, the activity constituted 'hiring' rather than 'Supply of Tangible Goods'. The transfer of right to use with possession and control placed the transaction under 'deemed sale', removing it from service tax purview. The department failed to prove retention of control by appellant. Additionally, since appellant's clients were GTAs who had already paid service tax, and appellant was not a GTA, the activity qualified as transfer by hire/rent of trucks, falling outside service tax scope. The original classification and tax demand were deemed incorrect, and appeal was allowed.
CESTAT ruled in favor of appellant regarding service tax liability on trailer services. The tribunal determined that since effective control and possession of trailers were transferred to clients for fixed payments, the activity constituted 'hiring' rather than 'Supply of Tangible Goods'. The transfer of right to use with possession and control placed the transaction under 'deemed sale', removing it from service tax purview. The department failed to prove retention of control by appellant. Additionally, since appellant's clients were GTAs who had already paid service tax, and appellant was not a GTA, the activity qualified as transfer by hire/rent of trucks, falling outside service tax scope. The original classification and tax demand were deemed incorrect, and appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.