Restoring the Assessing Officer’s findings, the Tribunal ruled that excessive salary to related directors can be disallowed when it substitutes dividend distribution. Reasonableness must be judged against comparable market remuneration.
CESTAT Mumbai held that service tax demand order set aside since show cause notice [SCN] and adjudication order not duly served upon the appellant. Accordingly, appeal is allowed.
The issue was whether 100% of alleged bogus purchases could be disallowed despite accepted production and sales. The Tribunal held that only the embedded profit element can be taxed, not the entire purchase value.
The Tribunal held that revision under Section 263 is invalid where the Assessing Officer has conducted enquiries and adopted a plausible view. Mere disagreement by the Commissioner does not render the assessment order erroneous.
The Tribunal examined whether cost of improvement can be denied solely due to cash payments. It ruled that genuine documentary evidence is sufficient, reducing the section 50C addition substantially.
The issue was whether entire cash deposits and unsecured loans could be taxed as unexplained income. The Tribunal held that only the embedded profit is taxable and restricted the addition to 10%.
The Tribunal held that a co-operative bank must deduct TDS on interest beyond the threshold despite payment to co-operative societies. Specific TDS provisions were held to override general exemptions.
A company was penalised for filing an incomplete and incorrect INC-22 for change of registered office. Startup status helped secure a reduced penalty under Section 446B.
Errors and omissions in the annual return were held to violate Section 92. Even timely filing does not cure defective disclosures, though penalties were reduced for a startup.
The adjudicating authority held that utilisation of application money before filing PAS-3 violates Section 42. Even procedural deviations in private placement can trigger substantial penalties.
