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 challenging service tax demand based on discrepancy between ST-3 returns and Form 26AS data. The Tribunal held that revenue cannot raise demand solely on differences between ST-3 returns and Form 26AS without examining reasons for variance or establishing that amounts received constituted consideration for taxable services. The appellant demonstrated non-receipt of payment due to billing disputes, negating the quid pro quo requirement under Section 66B of Finance Act, 1994. Extended limitation period was wrongly invoked as the appellant maintained proper records and filed regular returns, negating suppression of material facts. The demand was time-barred and lacked corroborative evidence beyond Form 26AS data, rendering the original order unsustainable.
CESTAT allowed the appeal challenging service tax demand based on discrepancy between ST-3 returns and Form 26AS data. The Tribunal held that revenue cannot raise demand solely on differences between ST-3 returns and Form 26AS without examining reasons for variance or establishing that amounts received constituted consideration for taxable services. The appellant demonstrated non-receipt of payment due to billing disputes, negating the quid pro quo requirement under Section 66B of Finance Act, 1994. Extended limitation period was wrongly invoked as the appellant maintained proper records and filed regular returns, negating suppression of material facts. The demand was time-barred and lacked corroborative evidence beyond Form 26AS data, rendering the original order unsustainable.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
