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 adjudicated a service tax dispute involving a 100% Export Oriented Unit's foreign transactions. The tribunal held that no service tax was leviable where the foreign bank and buyer were both located outside India, and the service was provided outside the taxable territory. The appellant was not considered the direct service recipient, and the charges were deemed part of sale terms rather than a taxable service. The tribunal found no direct transaction between the appellant and foreign service providers, rendering the service tax demand unsustainable. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, setting aside the original order and negating the service tax liability under the reverse charge mechanism.
CESTAT adjudicated a service tax dispute involving a 100% Export Oriented Unit's foreign transactions. The tribunal held that no service tax was leviable where the foreign bank and buyer were both located outside India, and the service was provided outside the taxable territory. The appellant was not considered the direct service recipient, and the charges were deemed part of sale terms rather than a taxable service. The tribunal found no direct transaction between the appellant and foreign service providers, rendering the service tax demand unsustainable. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, setting aside the original order and negating the service tax liability under the reverse charge mechanism.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
