The Tribunal examined whether penalties can continue after the main dispute is settled. It held that co-noticees have no independent liability once the primary demand is resolved. The ruling clarifies the consequential nature of such penalties.
The Tribunal examined whether land value can be included in taxable service value. It held that such value must be excluded and directed recomputation. The key takeaway is that sale of land cannot be taxed as service.
The issue involved delay in issuing TDS certificates due to technical issues. The Board extended the deadline to provide relief. The takeaway is that system glitches can justify compliance extensions.
The Tribunal examined whether interest recovery under Section 75 is subject to limitation. It held that limitation applicable to principal tax demand also applies to interest. The key takeaway is that interest cannot be recovered beyond prescribed time limits.
The Court examined whether claims not filed during CIRP can be pursued later. It held that such claims stand extinguished upon approval of the resolution plan. The key takeaway is that only claims included in the plan survive.
The Court examined whether delay in completing disciplinary inquiry invalidates proceedings. It held that Rule 14(24) timelines are directory and do not automatically nullify proceedings without proof of prejudice.
The Tribunal examined whether inputs were received in the factory before availing credit. It found no conclusive evidence supporting the department’s allegation. The key takeaway is that demands cannot be sustained on presumptions.
The Tribunal examined whether payments for flats were received post-completion. It directed verification of ledger records to determine tax liability. The key takeaway is that timing of receipts is crucial in construction service taxation.
The Tribunal examined taxability of receipts from electricity distribution activities. It held that such services, including ancillary activities, are exempt. The key takeaway is that bundled services inherit exemption of the principal activity.
The Tribunal examined whether addition under Section 68 could be made without seized evidence. It held that no addition is permissible in absence of incriminating material. The key takeaway is that search assessments must rely on concrete evidence.
