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 held that service tax cannot be levied on telephone charge waivers (CFA) provided by appellants to employees. The tribunal determined that free allowances constitute discounts/concessions rather than taxable consideration since benefits accrue to employees (service recipients) rather than the appellant (service provider). The bench rejected the department's best judgment method and assumptions-based tax computation, noting the show cause notice was vague regarding specified services. Following valuation principles, only consideration flowing from service recipient to provider is includable in gross taxable amount. Goodwill cannot be arbitrarily valued for taxation. The tribunal concluded that absent actual consideration received, CFA discounts fall outside service tax purview. Appeal allowed with full relief to appellant.
CESTAT held that service tax cannot be levied on telephone charge waivers (CFA) provided by appellants to employees. The tribunal determined that free allowances constitute discounts/concessions rather than taxable consideration since benefits accrue to employees (service recipients) rather than the appellant (service provider). The bench rejected the department's best judgment method and assumptions-based tax computation, noting the show cause notice was vague regarding specified services. Following valuation principles, only consideration flowing from service recipient to provider is includable in gross taxable amount. Goodwill cannot be arbitrarily valued for taxation. The tribunal concluded that absent actual consideration received, CFA discounts fall outside service tax purview. Appeal allowed with full relief to appellant.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.