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 dismissed the appeal and upheld the departmental demand for service tax, finding that the facilities were developed for commercial use and therefore not eligible for the exemption relied upon. The Tribunal held the appellant and the contracting authority acted as intermediaries for a government-funded project to be owned and operated by a project society, with revenue-generating leases to an operator; accordingly the exemption was inapplicable. CESTAT sustained invocation of the extended limitation period under the proviso to section 73, held suppression with intent to evade tax proved, and affirmed imposition of penalty under section 78 and interest under section 75 of the Finance Act. All reliefs claimed by the appellant were rejected.
CESTAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the departmental demand for service tax, finding that the facilities were developed for commercial use and therefore not eligible for the exemption relied upon. The Tribunal held the appellant and the contracting authority acted as intermediaries for a government-funded project to be owned and operated by a project society, with revenue-generating leases to an operator; accordingly the exemption was inapplicable. CESTAT sustained invocation of the extended limitation period under the proviso to section 73, held suppression with intent to evade tax proved, and affirmed imposition of penalty under section 78 and interest under section 75 of the Finance Act. All reliefs claimed by the appellant were rejected.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
