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...
The CESTAT allowed the appellant's appeal, set aside the impugned order and quashed demands for service tax, interest and penalties insofar as they related to forfeited earnest money, security deposits, fines and penal charges. The Tribunal held such forfeitures are penal in nature and lack nexus with any taxable "consideration" for the declared service under section 66E(e) of the Finance Act, 1994; they do not constitute consideration for agreeing to refrain or tolerate an act and therefore are not includible in taxable value. The adjudicating authorities were rebuked for disregarding precedent, characterized as judicial indiscipline, and were warned to exercise greater care in future proceedings.
The CESTAT allowed the appellant's appeal, set aside the impugned order and quashed demands for service tax, interest and penalties insofar as they related to forfeited earnest money, security deposits, fines and penal charges. The Tribunal held such forfeitures are penal in nature and lack nexus with any taxable "consideration" for the declared service under section 66E(e) of the Finance Act, 1994; they do not constitute consideration for agreeing to refrain or tolerate an act and therefore are not includible in taxable value. The adjudicating authorities were rebuked for disregarding precedent, characterized as judicial indiscipline, and were warned to exercise greater care in future proceedings.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
