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 ruled in favor of the appellant regarding service tax recovery for 2011-2012. The demand for April-September 2011 was time-barred, exceeding even the extended five-year limitation period under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act. For October 2011-March 2012, the Tribunal found insufficient grounds to invoke extended limitation, following SC precedent that suppression of facts must be willful and demonstrate clear intent to evade tax. The court emphasized that mere suppression alone is insufficient - it must be deliberate and accompanied by intent to evade payment, similar to other serious infractions like fraud or collusion. The service tax demands for both periods were invalidated and the appeal was allowed.
The CESTAT ruled in favor of the appellant regarding service tax recovery for 2011-2012. The demand for April-September 2011 was time-barred, exceeding even the extended five-year limitation period under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act. For October 2011-March 2012, the Tribunal found insufficient grounds to invoke extended limitation, following SC precedent that suppression of facts must be willful and demonstrate clear intent to evade tax. The court emphasized that mere suppression alone is insufficient - it must be deliberate and accompanied by intent to evade payment, similar to other serious infractions like fraud or collusion. The service tax demands for both periods were invalidated and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
