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 services rendered in the demarcated CCTL-CFS area are not port services and that subcontractors performing cargo handling activities are taxable service providers; accordingly the demand for service tax on merits was sustained against the appellant and the revenue. However, invocation of the proviso to Section 73(1) FA, 1994 for an extended period was rejected because no evidence of wilful suppression or misstatement was found, the amounts were reflected in public financial statements and ST-3 returns, and the appellants acted under a bona fide belief based on precedent. Consequently the demand is barred by limitation and the appeal is allowed.
CESTAT held that services rendered in the demarcated CCTL-CFS area are not port services and that subcontractors performing cargo handling activities are taxable service providers; accordingly the demand for service tax on merits was sustained against the appellant and the revenue. However, invocation of the proviso to Section 73(1) FA, 1994 for an extended period was rejected because no evidence of wilful suppression or misstatement was found, the amounts were reflected in public financial statements and ST-3 returns, and the appellants acted under a bona fide belief based on precedent. Consequently the demand is barred by limitation and the appeal is allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.