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 held that the impugned SCN was unsustainable because it failed to specify which taxable category applied to each receipt, and a statement issued under s.73(1A) was invalid where its grounds differed from the earlier SCN; accordingly demands on unspecified receipts were set aside. The Tribunal found the appellant to be a Governmental Authority and, for the years concerned, receipts relating to municipal functions and non-commercial construction are exempt under the relevant mega-notification; composite construction taxability could not be sustained without valuation machinery. Reverse-charge liability for legal services did not attach to the Governmental Authority. Matters concerning taxable commercial construction were remanded for quantification; penalty under s.70 read with Rule 7C was upheld. Appeals partially allowed and remitted.
The CESTAT held that the impugned SCN was unsustainable because it failed to specify which taxable category applied to each receipt, and a statement issued under s.73(1A) was invalid where its grounds differed from the earlier SCN; accordingly demands on unspecified receipts were set aside. The Tribunal found the appellant to be a Governmental Authority and, for the years concerned, receipts relating to municipal functions and non-commercial construction are exempt under the relevant mega-notification; composite construction taxability could not be sustained without valuation machinery. Reverse-charge liability for legal services did not attach to the Governmental Authority. Matters concerning taxable commercial construction were remanded for quantification; penalty under s.70 read with Rule 7C was upheld. Appeals partially allowed and remitted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
