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 for valuation under the levy of service tax the portion of tax deducted at source (TDS) borne by the Appellant and deposited with the Government is not includible in the taxable value of royalty paid to the foreign vendor. Applying the factual scenario where royalty payable was INR 100 and TDS of INR 10 was separately discharged to the Government, the Tribunal concluded the INR 10 did not constitute consideration for the service and therefore could not attract service tax. The impugned order was set aside and the appeal allowed, absolving the Appellant from liability to pay service tax on the TDS amount.
CESTAT held that for valuation under the levy of service tax the portion of tax deducted at source (TDS) borne by the Appellant and deposited with the Government is not includible in the taxable value of royalty paid to the foreign vendor. Applying the factual scenario where royalty payable was INR 100 and TDS of INR 10 was separately discharged to the Government, the Tribunal concluded the INR 10 did not constitute consideration for the service and therefore could not attract service tax. The impugned order was set aside and the appeal allowed, absolving the Appellant from liability to pay service tax on the TDS amount.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.