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, as service recipient under the reverse charge mechanism, was not eligible for the exemption available to a non-taxable territory service provider under Notification No. 14/2004-ST; further, the exemption was conditional and limited to 1% of FOB, which the appellant exceeded and failed to substantiate through required EXP-4 filings. However, the Tribunal found no evidence of deliberate suppression with intent to evade duty and held the department's invocation of the extended period of limitation unjustified. Consequently the show cause notice was time-barred, the demand set aside, the impugned order quashed, and the appeal allowed in favour of the appellant.
CESTAT held that the appellant, as service recipient under the reverse charge mechanism, was not eligible for the exemption available to a non-taxable territory service provider under Notification No. 14/2004-ST; further, the exemption was conditional and limited to 1% of FOB, which the appellant exceeded and failed to substantiate through required EXP-4 filings. However, the Tribunal found no evidence of deliberate suppression with intent to evade duty and held the department's invocation of the extended period of limitation unjustified. Consequently the show cause notice was time-barred, the demand set aside, the impugned order quashed, and the appeal allowed in favour of the appellant.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
