The issue was whether supply of water to vessels is a sale or a service. The Tribunal held that such supply forms part of port services and is taxable prior to 01.07.2010. It upheld the tax demand based on statutory provisions and CBEC clarification.
The Tribunal held that tenancy supported by rent receipts, bills, and agreements cannot be treated as a sham. It upheld exemption under Section 54F on surrender of tenancy rights.
The Tribunal held that absence of charitable activities at the time of application does not make a trust non-genuine. The key takeaway is that proposed activities and charitable objects must be considered for registration.
The Tribunal held that interest on borrowed funds used to acquire a foreign company in the same line of business is allowable under Section 36(1)(iii). It found that the acquisition was driven by commercial expediency and business expansion.
The Tribunal held that whether conversion of GI wire into barbed wire and mesh amounts to manufacture requires fresh evaluation. It set aside earlier orders due to incomplete analysis. The case was remanded for re-examination of all issues.
The issue was whether post-manufacturing expense deductions on a weighted average basis are admissible. The Tribunal held that earlier rulings in the same case had settled the issue, leading to cancellation of demand and penalties.
The Court held that administrative delay in releasing seized jewellery violated CBDT-prescribed timelines. It ruled that increased bank guarantee due to rising gold prices cannot be imposed on the taxpayer.
Issue was whether reimbursement of advertisement expenses constitutes taxable service under BAS. Tribunal held that cost-sharing without a service provider–recipient relationship is not taxable and set aside demand.
Tribunal held that builders were not liable to service tax before 01.07.2010 based on statutory provisions and Board circulars. It set aside demand for disputed period accordingly.
The Tribunal held that failure to intimate the Superintendent under Rule 6(3A) does not invalidate proportionate credit reversal. It clarified that such intimation is procedural and not a substantive condition.
