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 allowed the appeal against the rejection of refund claims relating to service tax credit utilized for authorized operations within the SEZ. The tribunal held that the refund could not be denied solely on the ground that the services were consumed within the SEZ. It was established that the services claimed were covered under Notification No. 09/2009 and were not excluded by the subsequent amendment in Notification No. 15/2009. The amendment clarified that only services wholly consumed within the SEZ and exempt ab initio were excluded from refund, whereas services used for authorized operations remained eligible. The absence of evidence regarding approval by the approval committee was insufficient to reject the claim. Consequently, the impugned orders denying the refund were set aside, and the refund claims were allowed.
The CESTAT allowed the appeal against the rejection of refund claims relating to service tax credit utilized for authorized operations within the SEZ. The tribunal held that the refund could not be denied solely on the ground that the services were consumed within the SEZ. It was established that the services claimed were covered under Notification No. 09/2009 and were not excluded by the subsequent amendment in Notification No. 15/2009. The amendment clarified that only services wholly consumed within the SEZ and exempt ab initio were excluded from refund, whereas services used for authorized operations remained eligible. The absence of evidence regarding approval by the approval committee was insufficient to reject the claim. Consequently, the impugned orders denying the refund were set aside, and the refund claims were allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
