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 held that the appellant's claim of exemption under Notification No. 25/2012-ST fails because the recipient was a state government company and not a statutory authority created by statute; therefore the notification is inapplicable. The Tribunal affirmed invocation of the extended period of limitation, finding no complex questions and noting prior judicial determination of the recipient's status and contemporaneous evidence that service tax was paid only from October 2013, establishing intent to short-pay/evade tax. Penalty under section 78 was upheld; challenges to penalties under section 77(1)(a) and late fee under section 77(2) were not pursued. The appeal was dismissed.
CESTAT held that the appellant's claim of exemption under Notification No. 25/2012-ST fails because the recipient was a state government company and not a statutory authority created by statute; therefore the notification is inapplicable. The Tribunal affirmed invocation of the extended period of limitation, finding no complex questions and noting prior judicial determination of the recipient's status and contemporaneous evidence that service tax was paid only from October 2013, establishing intent to short-pay/evade tax. Penalty under section 78 was upheld; challenges to penalties under section 77(1)(a) and late fee under section 77(2) were not pursued. The appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
