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 CESTAT held that service tax is not leviable on royalty payments made under reverse charge for the assignment of mining rights conferred prior to 01.04.2016, as the mining lease was executed before that date. Relying on precedent affirmed by the Supreme Court, the tribunal found that the Point of Taxation Rules do not determine the taxability of the service but only the timing of payment. Accordingly, the appellant's royalty payments from April 2016 to June 2017 were held non-taxable. The entire service tax demand was set aside, and no penalty was imposed. The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant.
The CESTAT held that service tax is not leviable on royalty payments made under reverse charge for the assignment of mining rights conferred prior to 01.04.2016, as the mining lease was executed before that date. Relying on precedent affirmed by the Supreme Court, the tribunal found that the Point of Taxation Rules do not determine the taxability of the service but only the timing of payment. Accordingly, the appellant's royalty payments from April 2016 to June 2017 were held non-taxable. The entire service tax demand was set aside, and no penalty was imposed. The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.