The issue involved whether a guarantee cap covered both principal and interest. The Tribunal held that default interest is a separate liability. The takeaway is that interest obligations can extend beyond capped principal liability.
The case examined conflicting allegations of non-movement and diversion of goods. The Tribunal held that such inconsistency, along with prior duty payment, made the demand unsustainable.
The issue involved revision of assessment where income was declared under Section 44AD. The Tribunal held that absence of books makes Section 68 inapplicable. The takeaway is that revision cannot be based on lack of records not required by law.
The issue involved addition made without providing a hearing. The Tribunal held that once such action is invalid, further directions cannot be issued. The takeaway is that procedural violation nullifies subsequent directions.
The case examined whether despatch money received for faster cargo unloading qualifies as taxable port service. The Tribunal held it is a contractual incentive linked to freight terms, not consideration for a service, and hence not taxable.
The issue involved classification of services related to rake movement. The Tribunal held that deployment of staff falls under manpower supply, not cargo handling. The takeaway is that correct classification determines tax liability.
The case examined whether a 2345-day delay could be condoned based on reasons like miscommunication and financial hardship. The Tribunal held that vague explanations and negligence do not qualify as sufficient cause, leading to dismissal of appeals.
The issue was whether CSR expenditure qualifies for deduction under section 80G. The Tribunal held that deduction is allowable as there is no specific prohibition except for certain funds.
CIT & Anr. Vs MPHASIS Limited (Supreme Court of India) The Supreme Court of India dismissed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the Revenue on the ground of an unexplained delay of 600 days. The Court noted that no satisfactory explanation had been provided to justify condonation of such delay and, accordingly, dismissed the […]
The issue involved limitation for initiating proceedings where no statutory time limit exists. The Court upheld that actions must still be within a reasonable period. The takeaway is that absence of explicit limitation does not permit indefinite action.
