Tribunal held that technical handling income is covered under Article 8 of India–France DTAA. It ruled that such income arises from operation of aircraft in international traffic and is not taxable in India.
The Tribunal held that protective additions cannot be sustained without establishing the assessee as the actual beneficiary of cash credits. It upheld deletion where ownership was not proven.
The Court held that cancellation for non-filing of returns can be reconsidered if the taxpayer files pending returns and clears dues. Authorities must examine such applications under Rule 22.
The Court held that blocking ITC without available credit in the ledger is beyond statutory powers. It ruled that negative blocking is impermissible and directed restoration of the credit.
The Supreme Court held that ambiguity in exemption notifications cannot benefit taxpayers. It ruled that such ambiguity must be resolved in favour of the Revenue, reinforcing strict interpretation principles.
The Tribunal found that the relationship between parties was a commercial arrangement for smooth supply of goods. It held that such arrangements do not amount to benami transactions. commercial dealings must be distinguished from benami arrangements.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in fully rejecting the assessee’s explanation linking cash deposits to business sales. However, due to incomplete substantiation, a limited addition of ₹8 lakh was sustained.
The Tribunal held that the government’s decision to canalise exports of beach sand minerals was a policy measure involving strategic resources. It ruled that such sovereign functions are excluded from the definition of enterprise under competition law.
The Court held that authorities cannot initiate confiscation under Section 130 without completing detention proceedings under Section 129. It ruled that bypassing statutory procedure renders the action invalid.
The Tribunal upheld denial of loss set-off as the statutory eight-year limit for carrying forward capital losses had expired. It ruled that pending litigation does not extend the permissible period under the law.
