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 set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Assistant Commissioner, ruling that amounts deposited by the appellant during investigation, which were appropriated toward service tax demand, should be treated as service tax payment rather than pre-deposit. Following the Tribunal's earlier decision setting aside the demand, these amounts became refundable under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act (as applicable to service tax via Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994). The Tribunal directed that interest should be calculated under Section 11BB rather than Section 35FF, with the relevant date for interest calculation being the date of the Tribunal's order setting aside the demand. No new refund application was required as the appellant's letter already constituted a valid application.
The CESTAT set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Assistant Commissioner, ruling that amounts deposited by the appellant during investigation, which were appropriated toward service tax demand, should be treated as service tax payment rather than pre-deposit. Following the Tribunal's earlier decision setting aside the demand, these amounts became refundable under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act (as applicable to service tax via Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994). The Tribunal directed that interest should be calculated under Section 11BB rather than Section 35FF, with the relevant date for interest calculation being the date of the Tribunal's order setting aside the demand. No new refund application was required as the appellant's letter already constituted a valid application.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
