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 examined whether extended limitation period under section 73 of Finance Act, 1994 was correctly invoked regarding appellant's service turnover discrepancy for FY 2015-16. While appellant cited precedents against extended limitation, their failure to rectify statutory filings was noted. The Tribunal determined that adjudicating authority must examine details of goods supplied through trading, which are excluded from service tax purview. The authority's failure to differentiate between goods and services in valuation affected order credibility. Matter remanded to original authority for fresh adjudication, specifically to evaluate documents evidencing supply of goods not includible in taxable service value for disputed period. Appeal allowed through remand.
CESTAT examined whether extended limitation period under section 73 of Finance Act, 1994 was correctly invoked regarding appellant's service turnover discrepancy for FY 2015-16. While appellant cited precedents against extended limitation, their failure to rectify statutory filings was noted. The Tribunal determined that adjudicating authority must examine details of goods supplied through trading, which are excluded from service tax purview. The authority's failure to differentiate between goods and services in valuation affected order credibility. Matter remanded to original authority for fresh adjudication, specifically to evaluate documents evidencing supply of goods not includible in taxable service value for disputed period. Appeal allowed through remand.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
