ITAT Delhi held that effective opportunity of hearing was not provided before passing ex parte assessment and appellate orders. The matter relating to sustained addition was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
CESTAT Hyderabad ruled that pharmaceutical conversion work carried out under a job work agreement amounted to manufacture and not renting of immovable property. The Tribunal held that such activity falls outside service tax levy.
The Delhi High Court quashed a POCSO FIR after noting that the relationship was consensual and the parties were married with a child. The Court held that continuation of prosecution would harm the woman and infant child.
The Supreme Court held that sureties cannot be burdened with liability for excess withdrawals allowed by the bank without their consent. However, guarantors remain liable for the original sanctioned loan amount covered by the guarantee.
Despite major policy reforms and digitisation, businesses continue to face delays, inconsistent departmental practices, and avoidable litigation. The article highlights the gap between reform promises and practical implementation.
The article explains how multinational digital companies generate substantial revenue from Indian users while shifting profits to low-tax jurisdictions. Existing transfer pricing rules struggle to capture value created through digital presence and data monetisation.
The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the Delhi High Court order quashing reassessment notices issued to multiple foreign companies of the GE Group. The High Court had held that the Assessing Officer lacked tangible material to reopen assessments.
The Authority observed that the core element of the transaction was the grant of a non-exclusive right to access Coursera’s proprietary digital platform. It ruled that the supply involved licensing of intellectual property rather than educational services.
CAAR Mumbai held that imported elevator parts lacking guide rails, structural supports, and enclosure systems could not be classified as complete elevators under Rule 2(a). The authority ruled that the imports only represented parts and sub-assemblies requiring separate tariff classification.
The Court rejected the Revenue’s argument that payments for bandwidth and telecom connectivity constituted consideration for use of equipment. It held that the remittances were not royalty and therefore outside the scope of TDS liability.
