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 upheld the imposition of service tax on the appellant for fish exported without rearing or breeding, ruling that such fish do not qualify as agricultural produce under Section 66D(iii) and thus are not exempt from service tax. The tribunal held that services provided by the GTA for transporting such fish were taxable. Regarding sales commission paid to overseas agents in 2010-11 and 2013-14, the appellant was required to pay service tax upfront and could claim a refund limited to 1% of the FOB value under the relevant notifications. The appellant's failure to comply with procedural requirements constituted a violation of exemption notifications. The extended limitation period and penalty were justified due to suppression of facts and non-filing of returns, as revealed by third-party data. Consequently, the order imposing service tax, penalty, and invocation of extended limitation was affirmed, and the appeal was dismissed.
The CESTAT upheld the imposition of service tax on the appellant for fish exported without rearing or breeding, ruling that such fish do not qualify as agricultural produce under Section 66D(iii) and thus are not exempt from service tax. The tribunal held that services provided by the GTA for transporting such fish were taxable. Regarding sales commission paid to overseas agents in 2010-11 and 2013-14, the appellant was required to pay service tax upfront and could claim a refund limited to 1% of the FOB value under the relevant notifications. The appellant's failure to comply with procedural requirements constituted a violation of exemption notifications. The extended limitation period and penalty were justified due to suppression of facts and non-filing of returns, as revealed by third-party data. Consequently, the order imposing service tax, penalty, and invocation of extended limitation was affirmed, and the appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
