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...
The HC dismissed the revenue's appeal in a VAT classification dispute regarding equipment rental services. The assessee hired computers, printers, servers and peripherals to clients under agreements granting legal right to use the goods at specified locations. The court held that despite location restrictions, clients possessed effective control and legal right to use equipment, constituting supply of tangible goods subject to VAT as deemed sale. However, the court ruled against invoking extended limitation period, finding no willful suppression of facts since the assessee maintained service tax registration, filed returns promptly, and paid service tax liability, making the department aware of transaction nature. Consequently, penalty and interest were deemed inapplicable, upholding the tribunal's decision favoring the assessee.
The HC dismissed the revenue's appeal in a VAT classification dispute regarding equipment rental services. The assessee hired computers, printers, servers and peripherals to clients under agreements granting legal right to use the goods at specified locations. The court held that despite location restrictions, clients possessed effective control and legal right to use equipment, constituting supply of tangible goods subject to VAT as deemed sale. However, the court ruled against invoking extended limitation period, finding no willful suppression of facts since the assessee maintained service tax registration, filed returns promptly, and paid service tax liability, making the department aware of transaction nature. Consequently, penalty and interest were deemed inapplicable, upholding the tribunal's decision favoring the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.