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...
CESTAT allowed the appeal by appellant banks and set aside the adjudged service tax demands, interest and penalties in the impugned order dated 28.02.2017. The Tribunal held that charges levied by foreign correspondent/intermediary banks in export-related remittance and document-transfer transactions do not attract service tax on a reverse charge mechanism basis where Indian banks act for client exporters, and confirmed that liability under RCM is unsustainable. Relying on coordinate-bench reasoning, the Tribunal found no legal basis to treat Indian banks as recipients of taxable services rendered by foreign banks in such export settlements, and therefore quashed the departmental demand and related consequential penalties.
CESTAT allowed the appeal by appellant banks and set aside the adjudged service tax demands, interest and penalties in the impugned order dated 28.02.2017. The Tribunal held that charges levied by foreign correspondent/intermediary banks in export-related remittance and document-transfer transactions do not attract service tax on a reverse charge mechanism basis where Indian banks act for client exporters, and confirmed that liability under RCM is unsustainable. Relying on coordinate-bench reasoning, the Tribunal found no legal basis to treat Indian banks as recipients of taxable services rendered by foreign banks in such export settlements, and therefore quashed the departmental demand and related consequential penalties.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
