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 HC ruled that the arbitration clause barring writ jurisdiction was invalid per the CORE vs. ECI SPIC SMO MCML (JV) precedent. The Court determined that the dispute over service tax reimbursement following the 2012 legal regime change was not about liability to pay tax but about which party should bear the burden. The HC held that Railways must reimburse the service tax paid by the appellant, applying the principle that indirect tax incidence passes to the service recipient. Drawing an analogy to SS64A of the Sale of Goods Act, the Court concluded that new tax liabilities arising from state action post-contract should be borne by the service recipient. A writ of mandamus was issued directing Railways to reimburse the appellant with 9% interest.
The HC ruled that the arbitration clause barring writ jurisdiction was invalid per the CORE vs. ECI SPIC SMO MCML (JV) precedent. The Court determined that the dispute over service tax reimbursement following the 2012 legal regime change was not about liability to pay tax but about which party should bear the burden. The HC held that Railways must reimburse the service tax paid by the appellant, applying the principle that indirect tax incidence passes to the service recipient. Drawing an analogy to SS64A of the Sale of Goods Act, the Court concluded that new tax liabilities arising from state action post-contract should be borne by the service recipient. A writ of mandamus was issued directing Railways to reimburse the appellant with 9% interest.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.