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 appellant's appeal against remand order denying Swachh Bharat Cess rebate under N/N. 39/2012-ST for exported services. The Tribunal held that SBC is not part of CENVAT Credit under CENVAT Credit Rules, citing Delhi HC precedent. Original authority had already established compliance with notification conditions including service export, duty payment, and non-availment of CENVAT Credit on SBC component. Appellant's services were classified as Business Auxiliary and Business Support Services, not intermediary services, based on prior CESTAT decision in appellant's own case. Limitation period was satisfied as rebate application was filed within prescribed timeframe from quarter-end when FIRC was received. Commissioner (Appeals) erred in remanding matter without justification despite original authority's proper examination based on documentary evidence. Appeal allowed, remand order set aside.
CESTAT allowed the appellant's appeal against remand order denying Swachh Bharat Cess rebate under N/N. 39/2012-ST for exported services. The Tribunal held that SBC is not part of CENVAT Credit under CENVAT Credit Rules, citing Delhi HC precedent. Original authority had already established compliance with notification conditions including service export, duty payment, and non-availment of CENVAT Credit on SBC component. Appellant's services were classified as Business Auxiliary and Business Support Services, not intermediary services, based on prior CESTAT decision in appellant's own case. Limitation period was satisfied as rebate application was filed within prescribed timeframe from quarter-end when FIRC was received. Commissioner (Appeals) erred in remanding matter without justification despite original authority's proper examination based on documentary evidence. Appeal allowed, remand order set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
