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 demands relating to services rendered to two government entities, raised by invoking the extended period under the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, were time-barred, as the dispute concerned interpretation of exemption entries 12, 12A, 13 and 14 of N/N. 25/2012-ST and did not involve suppression or fraud. Consequently, those demands were confined to the normal limitation period and set aside as barred. Regarding short payment for 2015-16 admitted in ST-3 returns, the matter was remanded to the original authority to reconcile challans for 2017-18 with returns; recovery, interest, and Section 78 penalty would survive only to the extent of unreconciled short payment, while penalties under Section 77(1)(b) and 77(1)(c) were quashed.
CESTAT held that demands relating to services rendered to two government entities, raised by invoking the extended period under the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, were time-barred, as the dispute concerned interpretation of exemption entries 12, 12A, 13 and 14 of N/N. 25/2012-ST and did not involve suppression or fraud. Consequently, those demands were confined to the normal limitation period and set aside as barred. Regarding short payment for 2015-16 admitted in ST-3 returns, the matter was remanded to the original authority to reconcile challans for 2017-18 with returns; recovery, interest, and Section 78 penalty would survive only to the extent of unreconciled short payment, while penalties under Section 77(1)(b) and 77(1)(c) were quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.