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 held that the show cause notice issued under Section 111 of the Finance Act, 2013 was time-barred. The appellant had filed a declaration on 31.12.2013 under the Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme, but the notice was only served on 02.01.2015, beyond the statutory one-year limitation period. The Tribunal emphasized that "service" of notice must comply with statutory provisions, and neither issuance of the show cause notice nor pasting it on factory premises constituted proper service as required by law. Since the notice was not served within the prescribed time limit, all subsequent proceedings including demand confirmation were deemed non-maintainable. The appeal was allowed without examining the second ground regarding false declaration.
CESTAT held that the show cause notice issued under Section 111 of the Finance Act, 2013 was time-barred. The appellant had filed a declaration on 31.12.2013 under the Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme, but the notice was only served on 02.01.2015, beyond the statutory one-year limitation period. The Tribunal emphasized that "service" of notice must comply with statutory provisions, and neither issuance of the show cause notice nor pasting it on factory premises constituted proper service as required by law. Since the notice was not served within the prescribed time limit, all subsequent proceedings including demand confirmation were deemed non-maintainable. The appeal was allowed without examining the second ground regarding false declaration.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
