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 Revenue's appeal and upheld the adjudicatory order in favour of the respondent. The Tribunal found the Department failed to produce the approved layout plan to demonstrate that roads were common facilities within the residential complex, placing the evidentiary burden on the Department; absent that proof the Commissioner(A) correctly applied the mega exemption. The review-cum-authorization order was held defective because the Committee of Commissioners improperly authorized the appeal in violation of statutory authorization requirements, and Section 35A(3) of the Central Excise Act was wrongly invoked in a service tax matter where Section 86(2A) of the Finance Act governs revision; consequently the appeal was not maintainable and was dismissed.
CESTAT dismissed the Revenue's appeal and upheld the adjudicatory order in favour of the respondent. The Tribunal found the Department failed to produce the approved layout plan to demonstrate that roads were common facilities within the residential complex, placing the evidentiary burden on the Department; absent that proof the Commissioner(A) correctly applied the mega exemption. The review-cum-authorization order was held defective because the Committee of Commissioners improperly authorized the appeal in violation of statutory authorization requirements, and Section 35A(3) of the Central Excise Act was wrongly invoked in a service tax matter where Section 86(2A) of the Finance Act governs revision; consequently the appeal was not maintainable and was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
