The issue arose from disruption in shipping routes due to closure of a key maritime passage. CBIC allowed transhipment of FCL and LCL cargo from all ports and airports to ease congestion. The key takeaway is enhanced flexibility and faster cargo movement during disruptions.
The issue was whether self-sealing permission granted to exporters has a fixed validity period. CBIC clarified that such permission continues indefinitely unless withdrawn for non-compliance or misuse.
The Tribunal held that CIT(A) cannot make a fresh addition without issuing an enhancement notice. Cash redeposits from explained loan withdrawals were accepted as genuine.
The Tribunal held that transfer pricing adjustment cannot survive without a final assessment order post-DRP directions. Repeating such addition in a Section 263 order was held invalid.
The Tribunal held that appeal must be verified by the authorized principal officer. Filing by an incorrect person renders the appeal invalid and not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that ESOP costs are employee compensation and qualify as revenue expenditure. Disallowance treating them as capital expenditure was deleted.
The Tribunal held that interest earned on surplus funds is business income of a credit society. Such income qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).
The Tribunal held that adding both cash deposits and withdrawals may result in double taxation. The case was remanded for fresh examination with proper opportunity.
The Tribunal held that loss from discontinued operations cannot be restricted without evidence. Fully supported expenses must be allowed under Section 37(1).
Detailed explanation of meaning of income under section 2(24), including receipts, gains, benefits, subsidies, and other taxable items.
