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 affirmed service tax liability on upfront fees received under Concession Agreements for renting immovable property services, following the Larger Bench precedent in Rajasthan State Industrial Development case. The Tribunal held that "leasing" under Section 65(90a) includes both premium and periodical rent as defined under Section 105 of Transfer of Property Act, making one-time premium amounts taxable. However, CESTAT set aside penalties under Section 78, finding no allegations of fraud, collusion, or willful misstatement. Following Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority precedent, penalties were waived under Section 80 due to reasonable cause, as the appellant's bonafide belief that their governmental activity was non-taxable constituted sufficient justification. The impugned order was modified, with appeal allowed partly on penalty grounds.
CESTAT affirmed service tax liability on upfront fees received under Concession Agreements for renting immovable property services, following the Larger Bench precedent in Rajasthan State Industrial Development case. The Tribunal held that "leasing" under Section 65(90a) includes both premium and periodical rent as defined under Section 105 of Transfer of Property Act, making one-time premium amounts taxable. However, CESTAT set aside penalties under Section 78, finding no allegations of fraud, collusion, or willful misstatement. Following Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority precedent, penalties were waived under Section 80 due to reasonable cause, as the appellant's bonafide belief that their governmental activity was non-taxable constituted sufficient justification. The impugned order was modified, with appeal allowed partly on penalty grounds.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
