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 and set aside the service tax demand on additional license fees/spectrum charges. The Tribunal held the demand was barred by limitation as the extended period under Section 73(1) of Finance Act, 1994 was wrongly invoked, finding no suppression of facts by the appellant who regularly filed ST-3 returns and cooperated during audit proceedings. The additional license fee of Rs. 222.1 crores pertained to FY 2008-09 to 2013-14 following Supreme Court judgment in Association of Unified Service Providers case, during which period service tax was not leviable on such charges. Additionally, point of taxation had not arisen under Rule 7 of Point of Taxation Rules, 2011 as no invoice or demand document was issued by Government, establishing no service tax liability on the appellant.
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the service tax demand on additional license fees/spectrum charges. The Tribunal held the demand was barred by limitation as the extended period under Section 73(1) of Finance Act, 1994 was wrongly invoked, finding no suppression of facts by the appellant who regularly filed ST-3 returns and cooperated during audit proceedings. The additional license fee of Rs. 222.1 crores pertained to FY 2008-09 to 2013-14 following Supreme Court judgment in Association of Unified Service Providers case, during which period service tax was not leviable on such charges. Additionally, point of taxation had not arisen under Rule 7 of Point of Taxation Rules, 2011 as no invoice or demand document was issued by Government, establishing no service tax liability on the appellant.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
