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 amounts collected as fines, penalties, liquidated damages, or forfeiture of deposits from contractors for failure to meet contractual obligations do not constitute consideration for taxable services under Section 65B(44) of the Finance Act, 1994. Such amounts are penal in nature, intended to compensate for losses or deter breaches, and lack nexus with any service rendered. Consequently, these amounts cannot be classified as "Declared Services" under Section 66E(e) without an independent agreement to tolerate or refrain from an act. The tribunal affirmed that no service was performed corresponding to these charges, and thus no service tax demand under Section 66E(e) is maintainable. The impugned order demanding service tax on such amounts was quashed, and the appeal was allowed.
The CESTAT held that amounts collected as fines, penalties, liquidated damages, or forfeiture of deposits from contractors for failure to meet contractual obligations do not constitute consideration for taxable services under Section 65B(44) of the Finance Act, 1994. Such amounts are penal in nature, intended to compensate for losses or deter breaches, and lack nexus with any service rendered. Consequently, these amounts cannot be classified as "Declared Services" under Section 66E(e) without an independent agreement to tolerate or refrain from an act. The tribunal affirmed that no service was performed corresponding to these charges, and thus no service tax demand under Section 66E(e) is maintainable. The impugned order demanding service tax on such amounts was quashed, and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
