The Tribunal found that the relationship between parties was a commercial arrangement for smooth supply of goods. It held that such arrangements do not amount to benami transactions. commercial dealings must be distinguished from benami arrangements.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in fully rejecting the assessee’s explanation linking cash deposits to business sales. However, due to incomplete substantiation, a limited addition of ₹8 lakh was sustained.
The Tribunal held that the government’s decision to canalise exports of beach sand minerals was a policy measure involving strategic resources. It ruled that such sovereign functions are excluded from the definition of enterprise under competition law.
The Court held that authorities cannot initiate confiscation under Section 130 without completing detention proceedings under Section 129. It ruled that bypassing statutory procedure renders the action invalid.
The Tribunal upheld denial of loss set-off as the statutory eight-year limit for carrying forward capital losses had expired. It ruled that pending litigation does not extend the permissible period under the law.
The Court held that a miscellaneous application cannot be used to reopen a dismissed SLP unless it falls within limited exceptions like clerical errors or executory issues. It emphasized finality of judicial orders and dismissed the recall plea as not maintainable.
The Tribunal allowed deduction of royalty paid for use of a logo, noting that no specific defect was found in the supporting evidence. It held that the expenditure could not be disallowed merely on grounds of justification without examining its business purpose.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) can be made where loans are advanced from interest-free funds. It observed that availability of own funds and recovery during the year supported the assessee’s claim.
The Court ruled that reversal of ITC after a long delay does not negate interest liability. It emphasized that interest arises from the time of wrongful claim until reversal. Key takeaway: delayed correction does not absolve liability.
When an entity served both its members and the public, the dominant object test applies. If the regulatory functions lead to borrower protection and financial stability for low-income groups, the GPU status was maintainable.
