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 impugned service-tax demand, founded solely on CBDT data without independent corroborative evidence from service-tax records, was unsustainable; mere entries in income-tax filings do not establish liability under the Finance Act. The Tribunal found the appellants rendered arranging-transport services but did not issue consignment notes, and therefore the receipts fell within the negative list exclusion (s.66D(P)(i)(A)); accordingly the service was not taxable as GTA. Suppression with intent to evade tax was not established, so the extended period of limitation could not be invoked. Consequent demands of service tax, interest and penalty were set aside and the appeal was allowed.
CESTAT held that the impugned service-tax demand, founded solely on CBDT data without independent corroborative evidence from service-tax records, was unsustainable; mere entries in income-tax filings do not establish liability under the Finance Act. The Tribunal found the appellants rendered arranging-transport services but did not issue consignment notes, and therefore the receipts fell within the negative list exclusion (s.66D(P)(i)(A)); accordingly the service was not taxable as GTA. Suppression with intent to evade tax was not established, so the extended period of limitation could not be invoked. Consequent demands of service tax, interest and penalty were set aside and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
