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 partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the service tax demand related to Construction of Residential Complex Service (CRCS) on the grounds that the appellant complied with conditions under the relevant abatement notification and reversed the availed CENVAT credit. The Tribunal held that the transaction involving transfer of development rights and lump sum premium for commercial/vacant land amounted to a lease akin to sale, thus not taxable as renting of immovable property. Interest received on deferred payments was held to be penal and not includable in taxable value. Supply of water by the appellant, a government authority, was determined to be a sovereign function and not subject to service tax. Consequently, except for the CRCS activity where abatement applies, the service tax demand was confirmed. The denial of CENVAT credit was found unjustified as credits were reversed, negating further dispute on input credit eligibility.
The CESTAT partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the service tax demand related to Construction of Residential Complex Service (CRCS) on the grounds that the appellant complied with conditions under the relevant abatement notification and reversed the availed CENVAT credit. The Tribunal held that the transaction involving transfer of development rights and lump sum premium for commercial/vacant land amounted to a lease akin to sale, thus not taxable as renting of immovable property. Interest received on deferred payments was held to be penal and not includable in taxable value. Supply of water by the appellant, a government authority, was determined to be a sovereign function and not subject to service tax. Consequently, except for the CRCS activity where abatement applies, the service tax demand was confirmed. The denial of CENVAT credit was found unjustified as credits were reversed, negating further dispute on input credit eligibility.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
