The Tribunal held that preference share investments cannot be treated as loans without supporting evidence. Following earlier decisions and High Court rulings, the transfer pricing adjustment was deleted.
Tribunal ruled that share transactions cannot be treated as loans without proof of exceptional circumstances. Notional interest addition on such re-characterisation was deleted.
The Tribunal examined whether construction and infrastructure activities were taxable under WCS or CRCS. It held that presence of transfer of property in goods justified classification under WCS. The key takeaway is that specific taxable entries override earlier classifications once introduced.
The Tribunal examined whether processing of tobacco leaves amounts to taxable service under BAS. It held that no new distinct product emerges from threshing and drying. The key takeaway is that activities not altering essential characteristics remain outside BAS.
The Tribunal examined whether delay in filing appeal was justified under section 249(3). It held that sufficient cause must be interpreted liberally to ensure justice. The key takeaway is that technical delays should not deny statutory appeal rights.
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 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.
