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 denied CENVAT credit claims totaling Rs.80,95,227/- for advertising and tour operator services. Credit was disallowed on three grounds: advertising services related to products manufactured at a different unit than where credit was claimed; tour operator services fell under the exclusion clause of "input service" definition; and certain invoices were not in appellant's name, violating Rule 9(2) requirements. Despite appellant's pre-notice reversal of credits, CESTAT upheld extended period of limitation and penalties under Rule 15(2) CCR read with Section 11AC(1)(c), finding intentional suppression of material facts. The tribunal affirmed the original order, dismissing the appeal and requiring appropriation of reversed credits to government account.
CESTAT denied CENVAT credit claims totaling Rs.80,95,227/- for advertising and tour operator services. Credit was disallowed on three grounds: advertising services related to products manufactured at a different unit than where credit was claimed; tour operator services fell under the exclusion clause of "input service" definition; and certain invoices were not in appellant's name, violating Rule 9(2) requirements. Despite appellant's pre-notice reversal of credits, CESTAT upheld extended period of limitation and penalties under Rule 15(2) CCR read with Section 11AC(1)(c), finding intentional suppression of material facts. The tribunal affirmed the original order, dismissing the appeal and requiring appropriation of reversed credits to government account.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
