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 appellant's arrangement with M/s X Pvt. Ltd. for operating car parking facilities in the mall basement and additional parking area was a profit-sharing service contract and not a lease of space. The Tribunal noted that the entire parking revenue was first credited to the appellant's bank account and only thereafter was the operator's share remitted, evidencing revenue sharing rather than fixed rental. Accordingly, the activity qualified as "services by way of vehicle parking to general public" eligible for exemption under the applicable notification, and not as "leasing of space for an entity for providing parking facility." Observing violation of judicial discipline by the lower authority, CESTAT set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal.
CESTAT held that the appellant's arrangement with M/s X Pvt. Ltd. for operating car parking facilities in the mall basement and additional parking area was a profit-sharing service contract and not a lease of space. The Tribunal noted that the entire parking revenue was first credited to the appellant's bank account and only thereafter was the operator's share remitted, evidencing revenue sharing rather than fixed rental. Accordingly, the activity qualified as "services by way of vehicle parking to general public" eligible for exemption under the applicable notification, and not as "leasing of space for an entity for providing parking facility." Observing violation of judicial discipline by the lower authority, CESTAT set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.