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 allowed refund claims for service tax wrongly collected and paid on 'construction of complex' services during September 2008 to May 2010. Following KVR Construction precedent, the tribunal held that amounts paid under mistaken notion cannot be classified as service tax when no legal obligation existed. The limitation period under Section 11B of Central Excise Act 1944 was deemed inapplicable as the payment did not constitute legitimate service tax. The tribunal overturned the lower authorities' rejection of refund claims based on time limitation, affirming that service tax was not leviable on construction services prior to July 1, 2010, per the explanation to Section 65(105)(zza) of Finance Act, 1994.
CESTAT allowed refund claims for service tax wrongly collected and paid on 'construction of complex' services during September 2008 to May 2010. Following KVR Construction precedent, the tribunal held that amounts paid under mistaken notion cannot be classified as service tax when no legal obligation existed. The limitation period under Section 11B of Central Excise Act 1944 was deemed inapplicable as the payment did not constitute legitimate service tax. The tribunal overturned the lower authorities' rejection of refund claims based on time limitation, affirming that service tax was not leviable on construction services prior to July 1, 2010, per the explanation to Section 65(105)(zza) of Finance Act, 1994.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.