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 determined service tax liability on commission-based loan facilitation services. Appellant challenged tax calculation basis and limitation period. Tribunal held service tax must be computed on gross commission amount per Section 67 of Finance Act, not net commission received, following precedent in JMD Marketing case. However, extended limitation period u/s 73(1) was invalidly invoked as Department failed to prove willful suppression of facts, considering appellant's bona fide belief and consistent tax payments on net commission. While ruling against appellant on valuation methodology, appeal succeeded on limitation grounds. Demand held time-barred, impugned order set aside.
CESTAT determined service tax liability on commission-based loan facilitation services. Appellant challenged tax calculation basis and limitation period. Tribunal held service tax must be computed on gross commission amount per Section 67 of Finance Act, not net commission received, following precedent in JMD Marketing case. However, extended limitation period u/s 73(1) was invalidly invoked as Department failed to prove willful suppression of facts, considering appellant's bona fide belief and consistent tax payments on net commission. While ruling against appellant on valuation methodology, appeal succeeded on limitation grounds. Demand held time-barred, impugned order set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
