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 filed by a Central Para Military Force against service tax demand on notional value of facilities provided by SSP. The appellant had discharged service tax on consideration received for security services but the Department demanded tax on additional facilities like rent-free accommodation, office premises, electricity, vehicles, fuel, medical treatment, and stationery provided by SSP. The Tribunal held that without evidence of actual payment or quantified cost in the MOU, notional value cannot be included in taxable value under Section 67(1)(ii) of Finance Act, 1994 and Rule 3(3) of Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006. The Tribunal also found no suppression by the appellant to invoke extended limitation period. Following precedent in CGST CCE Dehradun v. Commandant CISF Unit, the demand was set aside on both merits and limitation grounds.
CESTAT allowed the appeal filed by a Central Para Military Force against service tax demand on notional value of facilities provided by SSP. The appellant had discharged service tax on consideration received for security services but the Department demanded tax on additional facilities like rent-free accommodation, office premises, electricity, vehicles, fuel, medical treatment, and stationery provided by SSP. The Tribunal held that without evidence of actual payment or quantified cost in the MOU, notional value cannot be included in taxable value under Section 67(1)(ii) of Finance Act, 1994 and Rule 3(3) of Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006. The Tribunal also found no suppression by the appellant to invoke extended limitation period. Following precedent in CGST CCE Dehradun v. Commandant CISF Unit, the demand was set aside on both merits and limitation grounds.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
