The Tribunal found that the appellate order was passed ex parte without a reasoned decision. The case was remanded for fresh adjudication after granting proper hearing.
The court examined an assessment passed without considering the taxpayers detailed reply. It held that non-consideration of the reply violates natural justice, warranting remand.
The dispute concerned whether DRT Hyderabad had territorial jurisdiction over a recovery application. The Tribunal held that jurisdiction was valid since the bank office maintaining the loan account was located at Hyderabad.
The case examined whether assignment of programme copyright was a service or a sale. The Tribunal held that permanent transfer of copyright is a sale liable to VAT, not service tax.
Failure to comply with section 143(2) by the competent Assessing Officer invalidates the assessment. The decision underscores strict adherence to jurisdictional requirements under the Act.
The tribunal examined whether a Singapore entity could claim DTAA exemption on capital gains from sale of Indian shares. It held that treaty benefits were unavailable as the entity lacked commercial substance and functioned as a shell or conduit.
The Tribunal ruled that nominal differences between declared consideration and stamp duty valuation do not trigger tax. Tolerance limits must be applied to avoid unjust enrichment of revenue.
The decision reiterates that reassessment cannot be initiated on borrowed satisfaction or presumptions. Independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer is mandatory for a valid reopening.
The Tribunal held that search-based reassessments issued beyond six assessment years are barred by limitation. Revenue appeals were dismissed as the statutory time limits could not be extended.
Construction, fit-out, and IT installation costs capitalised in fixed assets were held genuine. The Tribunal emphasized substance of records over suspicion based on third-party allegations.
