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 held that foreclosure charges collected by appellants on premature loan termination and seizure charges for vehicle release following loan default do not constitute taxable services under Banking and Financial Services category. The tribunal distinguished these penalty charges from core banking services, noting they are collected as penalties for non-performance of contractual clauses rather than for provision of taxable services. Relying on Supreme Court precedent in Bhayana Builders and CESTAT Larger Bench decision in Repco Home Finance, the tribunal concluded such charges cannot form part of gross taxable value under Section 65(105) of Finance Act, 1994. The impugned order demanding service tax on these charges was set aside and appeal allowed.
CESTAT held that foreclosure charges collected by appellants on premature loan termination and seizure charges for vehicle release following loan default do not constitute taxable services under Banking and Financial Services category. The tribunal distinguished these penalty charges from core banking services, noting they are collected as penalties for non-performance of contractual clauses rather than for provision of taxable services. Relying on Supreme Court precedent in Bhayana Builders and CESTAT Larger Bench decision in Repco Home Finance, the tribunal concluded such charges cannot form part of gross taxable value under Section 65(105) of Finance Act, 1994. The impugned order demanding service tax on these charges was set aside and appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
