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 the appellant is liable to service tax for site formation, clearance, excavation, earthmoving and demolition services for the period 2008-09 to 30.06.2012, rejecting its works-contract classification argument and denial of liability. The Tribunal affirmed denial of exemption under the relevant notification for lack of contractual evidence and sustained invocation of the extended period, finding wilful evasion and rejecting bona fide ignorance. CESTAT partially set aside penalties (reducing the penalty imposed under Section 78 to the limited extent specified) but did not disturb demands acknowledged by the appellant. The Tribunal remitted the balance of duty, interest and penalties to the adjudicating authority for de novo adjudication with limited legal observations; appeal allowed in part.
CESTAT upheld that the appellant is liable to service tax for site formation, clearance, excavation, earthmoving and demolition services for the period 2008-09 to 30.06.2012, rejecting its works-contract classification argument and denial of liability. The Tribunal affirmed denial of exemption under the relevant notification for lack of contractual evidence and sustained invocation of the extended period, finding wilful evasion and rejecting bona fide ignorance. CESTAT partially set aside penalties (reducing the penalty imposed under Section 78 to the limited extent specified) but did not disturb demands acknowledged by the appellant. The Tribunal remitted the balance of duty, interest and penalties to the adjudicating authority for de novo adjudication with limited legal observations; appeal allowed in part.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
