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 appeal, finding that: (1) proportionate CENVAT credit reversal sufficiently complied with Rule 6(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004; (2) CA certificates validly established no credit was availed on common input services from October 2012 to March 2015; (3) original invoice submission to Range Office was acceptable; and (4) extended limitation period was improperly invoked given comprehensive prior audits and regular return filings. The tribunal set aside the demand for 5%/6% of exempted services value, effectively ruling in favor of the appellant by rejecting the department's claims and procedural challenges.
CESTAT allowed the appeal, finding that: (1) proportionate CENVAT credit reversal sufficiently complied with Rule 6(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004; (2) CA certificates validly established no credit was availed on common input services from October 2012 to March 2015; (3) original invoice submission to Range Office was acceptable; and (4) extended limitation period was improperly invoked given comprehensive prior audits and regular return filings. The tribunal set aside the demand for 5%/6% of exempted services value, effectively ruling in favor of the appellant by rejecting the department's claims and procedural challenges.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.