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 the service tax demand for the period 01.10.2014 to 30.06.2017 wholly barred by limitation. The tribunal held that the jurisdictional officers failed to scrutinize the appellant's returns, which consistently declared export of services. The extended limitation period was improperly invoked, as the department had prior knowledge of the appellant's service tax declarations. Given the limitation bar, the tribunal refrained from examining the substantive merits of the case, particularly noting the subsequent GST regime's implementation and the department's own prior favorable order for subsequent periods.
CESTAT allowed the appeal, finding the service tax demand for the period 01.10.2014 to 30.06.2017 wholly barred by limitation. The tribunal held that the jurisdictional officers failed to scrutinize the appellant's returns, which consistently declared export of services. The extended limitation period was improperly invoked, as the department had prior knowledge of the appellant's service tax declarations. Given the limitation bar, the tribunal refrained from examining the substantive merits of the case, particularly noting the subsequent GST regime's implementation and the department's own prior favorable order for subsequent periods.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.