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 services rendered prior to 30.06.2012 are correctly classifiable as 'Commercial or Industrial Construction Service' (CICS), entitling the appellant to abatement. For the period post 01.07.2012, services were appropriately classified as 'works contract service', with valuation under Rule 2(A)(ii) being valid. The tribunal set aside demands raised under extended limitation period, finding no intentional tax evasion. The department's order was quashed as it exceeded the show cause notice's scope, violating principles of natural justice. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, with no penalties imposed.
CESTAT ruled that services rendered prior to 30.06.2012 are correctly classifiable as 'Commercial or Industrial Construction Service' (CICS), entitling the appellant to abatement. For the period post 01.07.2012, services were appropriately classified as 'works contract service', with valuation under Rule 2(A)(ii) being valid. The tribunal set aside demands raised under extended limitation period, finding no intentional tax evasion. The department's order was quashed as it exceeded the show cause notice's scope, violating principles of natural justice. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, with no penalties imposed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.