The High Court held that Fringe Benefit Tax and Section 14A disallowance cannot be added while computing MAT under Section 115JB. The ruling confirms that only adjustments expressly permitted by law can alter book profits.
The Authority refused to rule on roasted areca nut classification, holding that the issue had already been conclusively decided by a High Court. A statutory bar prevented reconsideration despite tariff renumbering.
The advance ruling held that a vertebral body replacement implant functions as a substitute for an absent vertebra and therefore falls under other artificial parts of the body.
The Tribunal examined whether reassessment could stand when based on information relating to another individual. It held that reopening was invalid due to absence of any tangible material against the assessee.
Pune ITAT restored the matter to the CIT(A) after the assessee argued that adequate opportunity was not provided to explain the source of funds received. The Tribunal directed fresh adjudication with proper hearing and liberty to file supporting evidence.
The High Court held that incentives earned by an advertising agency from media firms do not attract service tax when no separate service is rendered to them. The ruling clarifies that incidental incentives linked to core services are not taxable.
The ruling states that the appellate authority must decide grounds on merits after examining evidence, even if the assessee was non-cooperative. The case was sent back for reconsideration subject to costs.
The dispute concerned whether food sold at cinema counters involved a taxable service. The Tribunal held such transactions to be pure sales of goods and set aside the service tax demand with consequential relief.
The issue was whether an individual accused could be compelled to represent a corporate accused in a PMLA trial. The court held that only the company can appoint its representative and set aside the trial court’s order.
The Tribunal held that pension paid by the US government is taxable only in the United States under the India–USA DTAA. The key takeaway is that beneficial treaty provisions prevail over Indian tax law.
