The case examined whether a tube-fed nutritional liquid qualifies as a beverage. Authorities held that its clinical use and lack of consumption as a drink exclude it from beverage classification.
The Supreme Court affirmed that payments for cloud computing services are not royalty where no intellectual property rights are transferred. It held that mere access to services does not amount to use of equipment or technology under tax law.
The Court held that the issue of treating DRP upload as receipt was already settled by earlier rulings. It dismissed the Revenue’s appeals while making the decision subject to the Supreme Court’s final outcome.
The Tribunal held that trading and service activities were inextricably linked and could not be segmented. It accepted entity-level TNMM, rendering TP adjustments unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that TDS credit cannot be denied merely because it does not appear under the assessee’s PAN. It ruled that the assessee cannot be forced to ensure revision of TDS returns by the deductor.
The Tribunal set aside the dismissal of a delayed appeal, holding that the issue of distribution fee taxability requires fresh examination on merits. The case was remanded to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration with proper hearing.
The Tribunal held that return of advances cannot be taxed under Section 68. The key takeaway is that explained transactions supported by records cannot be treated as unexplained income.
The case addressed whether insurance services qualify as input services. The Tribunal held that insurance linked to business assets is eligible for Cenvat credit, emphasizing indirect nexus with manufacturing.
The case examined whether a CHA can be penalized for allowing misuse of its licence. The Tribunal upheld the penalty, holding that lack of due diligence leading to smuggling attracts liability.
The issue was whether an Assistant Commissioner was competent to pass a GST demand order. The Court held the order invalid due to lack of proper authorization. The key takeaway is that jurisdictional compliance is mandatory for tax orders.
