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 invocation of extended limitation under Section 129(2)(c) of the Finance Act, 2019, rejecting the appellant's contention that the SCN was time-barred. The appellant failed to disclose CENVAT credit utilization while declaring liability under SVLDRS, rendering their declaration substantially false. Their omission constituted suppression of facts with intent to evade service tax, justifying extended limitation and demand recovery. The tribunal found that the appellant did not dispute the tax liability but improperly sought to net it against undisclosed CENVAT credit. The penalty under Section 78 was sustained as justified. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for lack of merit.
The CESTAT upheld the invocation of extended limitation under Section 129(2)(c) of the Finance Act, 2019, rejecting the appellant's contention that the SCN was time-barred. The appellant failed to disclose CENVAT credit utilization while declaring liability under SVLDRS, rendering their declaration substantially false. Their omission constituted suppression of facts with intent to evade service tax, justifying extended limitation and demand recovery. The tribunal found that the appellant did not dispute the tax liability but improperly sought to net it against undisclosed CENVAT credit. The penalty under Section 78 was sustained as justified. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for lack of merit.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
