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 appeal against multiple service tax demands totaling Rs.1.83 crores. Primary demands included non-reversal of CENVAT credit on exempted services (Rs.1.00 crores), business support services (Rs.42.94 lakhs), and healthcare services. Tribunal found appellant had reversed CENVAT credit with interest, services were incorrectly classified under business support/auxiliary categories, and healthcare services were exempt being inpatient treatments. Revenue failed to prove suppression or willful misstatement warranting extended period under Section 73(1). Demands were either legally unsustainable or time-barred. Tribunal noted appellant's bona fides in paying service tax with interest wherever applicable, attributing non-compliance to interpretational difficulties rather than deliberate evasion.
CESTAT allowed appeal against multiple service tax demands totaling Rs.1.83 crores. Primary demands included non-reversal of CENVAT credit on exempted services (Rs.1.00 crores), business support services (Rs.42.94 lakhs), and healthcare services. Tribunal found appellant had reversed CENVAT credit with interest, services were incorrectly classified under business support/auxiliary categories, and healthcare services were exempt being inpatient treatments. Revenue failed to prove suppression or willful misstatement warranting extended period under Section 73(1). Demands were either legally unsustainable or time-barred. Tribunal noted appellant's bona fides in paying service tax with interest wherever applicable, attributing non-compliance to interpretational difficulties rather than deliberate evasion.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
