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 set aside service tax demand of Rs.5,54,77,142/- with interest against appellant, ruling the Show Cause Notice void ab initio as it was served on 30.12.2022 for period 2012-16, exceeding five-year limitation under Section 73(1) Finance Act, 1994. The Tribunal held demand based solely on Form 26AS and Income Tax returns without proper investigation was legally unsustainable, requiring corroborative evidence per established precedent. Extended limitation period invocation failed as appellant filed nil returns from October 2013-March 2014 without departmental objection, establishing no suppression with intent to evade tax. Section 78 penalty was set aside, but penalties under Sections 77(1)(c)(ii), 77(1)(c)(iii) and 77(2) were upheld for failure to file subsequent periodic returns despite claimed exemption eligibility under N/N. 25/2012-S.T.
CESTAT set aside service tax demand of Rs.5,54,77,142/- with interest against appellant, ruling the Show Cause Notice void ab initio as it was served on 30.12.2022 for period 2012-16, exceeding five-year limitation under Section 73(1) Finance Act, 1994. The Tribunal held demand based solely on Form 26AS and Income Tax returns without proper investigation was legally unsustainable, requiring corroborative evidence per established precedent. Extended limitation period invocation failed as appellant filed nil returns from October 2013-March 2014 without departmental objection, establishing no suppression with intent to evade tax. Section 78 penalty was set aside, but penalties under Sections 77(1)(c)(ii), 77(1)(c)(iii) and 77(2) were upheld for failure to file subsequent periodic returns despite claimed exemption eligibility under N/N. 25/2012-S.T.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
