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 ruled that service tax cannot be levied on liquidated damages and late payment charges under Section 66E(e) of the Finance Act, as these do not constitute a declared service. The Tribunal referenced CBIC Circular No. 214/1/2023-S.T. and determined that recovery of liquidated damages cannot be considered a service since the appellant was not carrying out any activity to receive compensation, nor was there any intention by the other party to breach contracts. Additionally, the extended period of limitation and penalties were found untenable as there was no suppression of facts, especially considering the appellant's status as a public sector undertaking. The Tribunal set aside the original orders, allowing the appeal.
CESTAT ruled that service tax cannot be levied on liquidated damages and late payment charges under Section 66E(e) of the Finance Act, as these do not constitute a declared service. The Tribunal referenced CBIC Circular No. 214/1/2023-S.T. and determined that recovery of liquidated damages cannot be considered a service since the appellant was not carrying out any activity to receive compensation, nor was there any intention by the other party to breach contracts. Additionally, the extended period of limitation and penalties were found untenable as there was no suppression of facts, especially considering the appellant's status as a public sector undertaking. The Tribunal set aside the original orders, allowing the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
