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 partial payment of tax liability. The tribunal determined that since the appellant had paid Rs. 9,88,319/- of the total Rs. 11,16,723/- service tax demand prior to show cause notice, and subsequently paid the remaining Rs. 1,28,404/- with interest and penalty within 30 days of the confirming order, the appellant qualifies for penalty reduction to 25% under Section 78 of Finance Act, 1994. The tribunal modified the original demand, confirming only the balance amount and reducing the penalty quantum. The appeal was partly allowed, granting the appellant the benefit of the statutory proviso for penalty mitigation.
CESTAT adjudicated a service tax dispute involving partial payment of tax liability. The tribunal determined that since the appellant had paid Rs. 9,88,319/- of the total Rs. 11,16,723/- service tax demand prior to show cause notice, and subsequently paid the remaining Rs. 1,28,404/- with interest and penalty within 30 days of the confirming order, the appellant qualifies for penalty reduction to 25% under Section 78 of Finance Act, 1994. The tribunal modified the original demand, confirming only the balance amount and reducing the penalty quantum. The appeal was partly allowed, granting the appellant the benefit of the statutory proviso for penalty mitigation.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
