The Tribunal held that no documentary evidence connected the Customs Broker to the alleged fraudulent exports. Revocation and penalty were quashed for want of proof.
The Tribunal held that commission paid to foreign agents for services rendered outside India is not taxable in India. Consequently, no TDS obligation arises, and disallowance under section 40(a)(i) was deleted.
The tribunal recalled its earlier order after finding it addressed an incorrect issue. It ultimately upheld that no disallowance applies when no expense is claimed.
The case addressed whether insurance services qualify as input services. The Tribunal held that insurance linked to business assets is eligible for Cenvat credit, emphasizing indirect nexus with manufacturing.
The case examined whether a CHA can be penalized for allowing misuse of its licence. The Tribunal upheld the penalty, holding that lack of due diligence leading to smuggling attracts liability.
The issue was whether an Assistant Commissioner was competent to pass a GST demand order. The Court held the order invalid due to lack of proper authorization. The key takeaway is that jurisdictional compliance is mandatory for tax orders.
The case examined whether authorities could revoke a G-card under existing regulations. The Tribunal held that no such power exists and ordered restoration of the G-card.
The issue was whether failure to reply justified confirmation of demand. The Court held that proper adjudication required a response and remitted the matter with conditions.
The court upheld ₹50,000 monthly maintenance after finding insufficient evidence of reduced income. It ruled that inability claims must be substantiated and cannot defeat maintenance obligations.
The issue was whether commission payments were genuine business expenses. The Tribunal held that disallowance based on non-response and suspicion was not justified. The key takeaway is that conjectures cannot replace evidence in tax assessments.
