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, upholding service tax liability on the appellant for works contract services rendered to a Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti. The Tribunal held that, though constituted under a State enactment, the Samiti does not qualify as a "Government authority" under Notification No. 25/2012-ST (as amended), when read with Article 243W and the Twelfth Schedule, and thus services provided to it are not per se exempt. Exemption under Sl. No. 12(e) was denied as the activities did not fall within the notified categories. Exemption under Sl. No. 13(a) was also rejected since the roads constructed were not for use by the general public but within restricted residential/other complexes.
CESTAT dismissed the appeal, upholding service tax liability on the appellant for works contract services rendered to a Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti. The Tribunal held that, though constituted under a State enactment, the Samiti does not qualify as a "Government authority" under Notification No. 25/2012-ST (as amended), when read with Article 243W and the Twelfth Schedule, and thus services provided to it are not per se exempt. Exemption under Sl. No. 12(e) was denied as the activities did not fall within the notified categories. Exemption under Sl. No. 13(a) was also rejected since the roads constructed were not for use by the general public but within restricted residential/other complexes.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
