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 set aside the demand for service tax on royalty charges under reverse charge, aligning with precedent that rights assigned predate payment terms. Denial of CENVAT credit on capital goods used partly for exempt services was reversed, recognizing credit eligibility where goods serve both taxable and exempt activities. However, the order was remanded regarding input service credit reversal, as the original authority failed to correctly apply proportionate reversal under Rule 6 of CCR, 2004. Service tax demands on works contract services were upheld, as the appellant failed to remit tax collected under specified work orders. Invocation of the extended limitation period was upheld due to non-cooperation and suppression of records during audit. Interest for delayed tax payment and penalties under Section 78 were confirmed. The appeal was allowed in part, with certain demands set aside and others restored or remanded for reassessment.
The CESTAT set aside the demand for service tax on royalty charges under reverse charge, aligning with precedent that rights assigned predate payment terms. Denial of CENVAT credit on capital goods used partly for exempt services was reversed, recognizing credit eligibility where goods serve both taxable and exempt activities. However, the order was remanded regarding input service credit reversal, as the original authority failed to correctly apply proportionate reversal under Rule 6 of CCR, 2004. Service tax demands on works contract services were upheld, as the appellant failed to remit tax collected under specified work orders. Invocation of the extended limitation period was upheld due to non-cooperation and suppression of records during audit. Interest for delayed tax payment and penalties under Section 78 were confirmed. The appeal was allowed in part, with certain demands set aside and others restored or remanded for reassessment.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
