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 the appellant's refund claim, overturning the lower authority's rejection. The Tribunal determined that the refund claim filed on 24.09.2021 was not time-barred as it was submitted within one year of the Order-in-Original dated 22.07.2021 that dropped the service tax demand, satisfying Section 11B of Central Excise Act read with Section 83 of Finance Act. The principles of unjust enrichment were inapplicable since the amount was erroneously collected as service tax on SIM card sales, an activity established as non-taxable. The absence of ST-3 returns was deemed irrelevant since the appellant had no service tax liability for the period in question, making the lower authority's rejection grounds factually incorrect.
CESTAT allowed the appellant's refund claim, overturning the lower authority's rejection. The Tribunal determined that the refund claim filed on 24.09.2021 was not time-barred as it was submitted within one year of the Order-in-Original dated 22.07.2021 that dropped the service tax demand, satisfying Section 11B of Central Excise Act read with Section 83 of Finance Act. The principles of unjust enrichment were inapplicable since the amount was erroneously collected as service tax on SIM card sales, an activity established as non-taxable. The absence of ST-3 returns was deemed irrelevant since the appellant had no service tax liability for the period in question, making the lower authority's rejection grounds factually incorrect.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
