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...
Page of 4830
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
141 to 160 of 96587 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The appellant's claim for refund of service tax paid on services rendered to KSIDC, contended to be a governmental authority under exemption notification 25/2012-ST, was rejected. The appellant failed to discharge the burden of proving KSIDC's status as a governmental authority under Article 243W of the Constitution or under the relevant exemption notification, relying solely on unverified website content. The tribunal held that without statutory or legal evidence, the exemption could not be granted. Further, the refund claim was barred by limitation under Section 11B of the CEA, 1944, as applied to the Finance Act, and the appellant's payment was not a mistaken payment of law. The provisions of Section 73A were found inapplicable. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the original orders, with no interference warranted.
The appellant's claim for refund of service tax paid on services rendered to KSIDC, contended to be a governmental authority under exemption notification 25/2012-ST, was rejected. The appellant failed to discharge the burden of proving KSIDC's status as a governmental authority under Article 243W of the Constitution or under the relevant exemption notification, relying solely on unverified website content. The tribunal held that without statutory or legal evidence, the exemption could not be granted. Further, the refund claim was barred by limitation under Section 11B of the CEA, 1944, as applied to the Finance Act, and the appellant's payment was not a mistaken payment of law. The provisions of Section 73A were found inapplicable. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the original orders, with no interference warranted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.