The Court held that provisional attachment under Section 110(5) lapses after six months if not extended. It ruled that failure to pass a timely extension order renders the attachment invalid.
The issue involved service tax demand on GTO services using Section 73. The Tribunal held that recipients governed by Section 71A cannot be proceeded against under Section 73. The demand was quashed due to procedural invalidity of the notice.
The Tribunal upheld deduction of ESOP expenses, relying on earlier decisions in the same case. It ruled that no change in facts justified a different view.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to present its case. It set aside the order and directed fresh assessment after proper hearing.
The Tribunal held that applications were rejected without adequate opportunity. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication following natural justice.
The Tribunal upheld cost-to-cost reimbursements for personnel and IT expenses where documentation and business purpose were established. However, advertisement expenses were disallowed due to absence of supporting evidence.
The Tribunal held that TDS credit must be granted in the year in which the related income is assessed, even if it is not reflected in Form 26AS. The case clarifies that timing differences by the deductor cannot deny rightful credit.
The Court granted bail noting absence of direct evidence connecting the applicant to the alleged fraudulent firm. The decision highlights that mere allegations without supporting material are insufficient to deny bail.
The Tribunal held that goods falling under the excluded category of the notification are not eligible for exemption. The appeal was dismissed as the claim was contrary to the express exclusion provision.
The Court noted that a system exists to provide temporary GST IDs for aggrieved persons. No further directions were issued as the grievance had been resolved.
