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...
Page of 4830
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
141 to 160 of 96587 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned demand and penalties. It held that CENVAT credit on services (erection/commissioning/installation) received at the appellant's depot/brand shop falls within the statutory definition of input services up to the place of removal and therefore could not be denied. The Tribunal rejected reliance on inapposite authorities concerning GTA services. A recovery was sustained only to the extent already voluntarily reversed by the appellant for Feb 2013-Jan 2014 (with interest); demands for earlier periods were quashed for lack of facts justifying invocation of the extended period of limitation and, consequently, penalties were also rescinded. The appeal was allowed.
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned demand and penalties. It held that CENVAT credit on services (erection/commissioning/installation) received at the appellant's depot/brand shop falls within the statutory definition of input services up to the place of removal and therefore could not be denied. The Tribunal rejected reliance on inapposite authorities concerning GTA services. A recovery was sustained only to the extent already voluntarily reversed by the appellant for Feb 2013-Jan 2014 (with interest); demands for earlier periods were quashed for lack of facts justifying invocation of the extended period of limitation and, consequently, penalties were also rescinded. The appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.