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...
Dominant issue: whether extended limitation under s.73(1) Finance Act applies for alleged suppression. Held that "suppression of facts" requires wilful concealment with intent to evade tax, and mere disclosure in published accounts and an unelaborated allegation in the notice cannot sustain extended limitation; extended period cannot be invoked. Substantive issue: whether amounts under two development agreements attract service tax. Held that transfer of undivided land interest to developers was in consideration of the developers' payment and constituted transfer of ownership, not a taxable service; therefore those receipts are not leviable. Miscellaneous receipts shown under s.194J are not automatically taxable and, even if taxable, fell below the annual threshold - no service tax liability; impugned order set aside. - CESTAT
Dominant issue: whether extended limitation under s.73(1) Finance Act applies for alleged suppression. Held that "suppression of facts" requires wilful concealment with intent to evade tax, and mere disclosure in published accounts and an unelaborated allegation in the notice cannot sustain extended limitation; extended period cannot be invoked. Substantive issue: whether amounts under two development agreements attract service tax. Held that transfer of undivided land interest to developers was in consideration of the developers' payment and constituted transfer of ownership, not a taxable service; therefore those receipts are not leviable. Miscellaneous receipts shown under s.194J are not automatically taxable and, even if taxable, fell below the annual threshold - no service tax liability; impugned order set aside. - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.