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 appeal filed by the assessee (A) and set aside the impugned order of the Commr (A). It held that the invocation of the extended period of limitation under the proviso to s.73(1) of the Finance Act for non-payment of service tax on car parking charges was unsustainable. The Tribunal observed that mere contravention of statutory provisions while filing self-assessed returns, without any positive act indicating fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement or deliberate suppression of facts with intent to evade tax, does not justify recourse to the extended limitation. As the SCN and record did not establish a conscious intent to evade service tax, the preconditions for applying the extended five-year period were not met. Consequently, the demand raised beyond the normal limitation period, along with related consequences, was quashed, and relief was granted to A.
The CESTAT allowed the appeal filed by the assessee (A) and set aside the impugned order of the Commr (A). It held that the invocation of the extended period of limitation under the proviso to s.73(1) of the Finance Act for non-payment of service tax on car parking charges was unsustainable. The Tribunal observed that mere contravention of statutory provisions while filing self-assessed returns, without any positive act indicating fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement or deliberate suppression of facts with intent to evade tax, does not justify recourse to the extended limitation. As the SCN and record did not establish a conscious intent to evade service tax, the preconditions for applying the extended five-year period were not met. Consequently, the demand raised beyond the normal limitation period, along with related consequences, was quashed, and relief was granted to A.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
