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, setting aside service tax demand against a goods transport agency. The tribunal held that demand cannot be raised solely based on discrepancies between ST-3 returns and Form 26AS/ITR data, as established in precedent cases. Services rendered to body corporates attracted reverse charge mechanism under Notification 30/2012-ST, making the recipient liable for tax payment. Services provided to other GTAs were exempt under entry 22 of Notification 25/2012-ST. The department incorrectly applied best judgment assessment despite regular ST-3 filing and failed to extend cum-tax benefit under Section 67(2). Extended limitation period was improperly invoked as appellant acted in bonafide belief regarding tax liability. The original order was passed ex-parte despite appellant's timely reply to show cause notice.
CESTAT allowed the appeal, setting aside service tax demand against a goods transport agency. The tribunal held that demand cannot be raised solely based on discrepancies between ST-3 returns and Form 26AS/ITR data, as established in precedent cases. Services rendered to body corporates attracted reverse charge mechanism under Notification 30/2012-ST, making the recipient liable for tax payment. Services provided to other GTAs were exempt under entry 22 of Notification 25/2012-ST. The department incorrectly applied best judgment assessment despite regular ST-3 filing and failed to extend cum-tax benefit under Section 67(2). Extended limitation period was improperly invoked as appellant acted in bonafide belief regarding tax liability. The original order was passed ex-parte despite appellant's timely reply to show cause notice.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
