Tribunal ruled that payments made for transfer of technology, technical documents, and manufacturing assistance under an inter-governmental agreement did not amount to Scientific and Technical Consultancy Service. It held that the arrangement related to technology transfer for aircraft production and not taxable consultancy.
CESTAT Chennai held that mere trading in air tickets did not amount to taxable “Tour Operator” service. The Tribunal ruled that retaining discounts on ticket sales was outside the scope of service tax.
CESTAT Delhi held that earlier GST cancellation history became irrelevant once the exporter possessed valid GST registration on the transaction date. The Tribunal set aside revocation of the Customs Broker License.
The Karnataka High Court accepted a mediation settlement in a prolonged land acquisition dispute after parties agreed on compensation, interest, and payment timelines. The Court held that the settlement would replace earlier awards and decrees under Section 89 CPC.
Tribunal held that deduction for bad debts is allowable in the year in which the debts are actually written off in the books of account. It rejected the Revenue’s view that NPAs classified earlier must necessarily be written off in those earlier years.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that delivery-based share transactions shown as investments in books could not be treated as business income without supporting evidence. The Tribunal upheld capital gains treatment for both STCG and LTCG.
The Competition Commission of India held that allegations of excessive pricing for medicines, tests, and consumables were not conclusively established. The case was closed after the Commission found insufficient evidence of abuse of dominant position.
The Madras High Court held that reassessment proceedings must be conducted only under the Faceless Assessment Scheme. The reassessment notice was quashed after the Court relied on an earlier Division Bench ruling.
The CCI observed that there was no evidence that medicines or consumables were sold above manufacturer-fixed MRPs. The Commission held that profit margins alone were insufficient to establish abuse of dominance.
The Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA held that routing demonetized cash through another person’s bank account constituted a benami transaction under the PBPT Act. The Tribunal ruled that cash qualifies as “property” and attachment could continue to the extent of the remaining benefit retained.
