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 remittances made by the appellant to overseas subsidiaries/licensees during April 2014-June 2017 did not constitute consideration for any "service" under s.65B(44) and were merely inter-company commercial settlements; no import of service arose and, applying POPS Rules, any performance-based activities occurred outside the taxable territory. The demand of service tax under RCM of Rs.36,77,40,000/- with interest and penalties was set aside on merits; extended limitation and penalties under ss.77-78 were also held unsustainable due to absence of suppression/intent and revenue-neutrality. A separate demand of Rs.1,16,11,766/- for Dec 2016 was remanded for verification of claimed tax payment/clerical omission in returns. Appeal partly allowed and partly remanded.
CESTAT held that remittances made by the appellant to overseas subsidiaries/licensees during April 2014-June 2017 did not constitute consideration for any "service" under s.65B(44) and were merely inter-company commercial settlements; no import of service arose and, applying POPS Rules, any performance-based activities occurred outside the taxable territory. The demand of service tax under RCM of Rs.36,77,40,000/- with interest and penalties was set aside on merits; extended limitation and penalties under ss.77-78 were also held unsustainable due to absence of suppression/intent and revenue-neutrality. A separate demand of Rs.1,16,11,766/- for Dec 2016 was remanded for verification of claimed tax payment/clerical omission in returns. Appeal partly allowed and partly remanded.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.