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 upheld that CENVAT credit for goods used in an EPC airport-expansion contract is generally available to the executing contractor, not the appellant, because construction activities are excluded from credit under the CCR, 2004 and the contractor availed the applicable exemption. CESTAT held, however, that items not forming part of the construction-specifically furniture, lighting and other goods procured and consigned in the appellant's name and used for output services-may qualify for credit. Suppression was rejected due to timely audits and disclosure in returns; therefore extended limitation was not invoked. Demand confirmed for the normal period; matter remanded to the original authority to re-examine eligibility of CENVAT on the specified non-construction goods.
CESTAT upheld that CENVAT credit for goods used in an EPC airport-expansion contract is generally available to the executing contractor, not the appellant, because construction activities are excluded from credit under the CCR, 2004 and the contractor availed the applicable exemption. CESTAT held, however, that items not forming part of the construction-specifically furniture, lighting and other goods procured and consigned in the appellant's name and used for output services-may qualify for credit. Suppression was rejected due to timely audits and disclosure in returns; therefore extended limitation was not invoked. Demand confirmed for the normal period; matter remanded to the original authority to re-examine eligibility of CENVAT on the specified non-construction goods.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
