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...
Retail sale value of franchisor's products was not excludible from the taxable value of beauty parlour services because the assessee failed to produce contemporaneous invoices/bills in the contractually prescribed manner and produced no VAT registration or VAT payment evidence, defeating the plea of independent sale; consequently, service tax demand was sustained. CENVAT credit was held inadmissible as it was never taken during the relevant period/adjudication and, in any event, cannot be availed beyond the prescribed time-limit as settled by binding Larger Bench law; consequently, credit benefit was denied. Extended limitation was upheld due to suppression with intent to evade, evidenced by non-payment and non-filing of returns despite registration; consequently, demand, interest, and Section 77(2) penalty were upheld, with Section 78 penalty modified, and the appeal dismissed - CESTAT
Retail sale value of franchisor's products was not excludible from the taxable value of beauty parlour services because the assessee failed to produce contemporaneous invoices/bills in the contractually prescribed manner and produced no VAT registration or VAT payment evidence, defeating the plea of independent sale; consequently, service tax demand was sustained. CENVAT credit was held inadmissible as it was never taken during the relevant period/adjudication and, in any event, cannot be availed beyond the prescribed time-limit as settled by binding Larger Bench law; consequently, credit benefit was denied. Extended limitation was upheld due to suppression with intent to evade, evidenced by non-payment and non-filing of returns despite registration; consequently, demand, interest, and Section 77(2) penalty were upheld, with Section 78 penalty modified, and the appeal dismissed - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
