The Tribunal found that the show cause notice did not identify the relevant provision under Business Auxiliary Services. It held that absence of specific legal basis renders the demand unsustainable.
The case examined whether failure to consider a binding tribunal precedent constitutes an error. The ITAT held that such non-consideration is a mistake apparent on record and recalled the issue for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal deleted the addition after finding that cash deposits were supported by disclosed sale consideration and documentary evidence. It held that unverified objections could not override confirmed transactions.
The case examined whether scrutiny selection without meeting CBDT conditions was valid. The ITAT held that failure to satisfy mandatory criteria invalidated the notice and entire assessment.
The Court held that issues relating to reliance on a third-party statement are factual matters. It declined to entertain the writ petition and directed the petitioner to avail statutory remedies.
The court held that electricity tariff for determining market value must include all components, including duty. It ruled that excluding such elements artificially reduces eligible deduction.
The Court held that the controversy was identical to a previously decided case. The petition was accordingly disposed of without fresh examination of merits.
The Tribunal held that imports across multiple consignments without one-to-one correlation cannot be treated as complete drones. It set aside the denial of provisional release.
The court held that service tax paid on foreign exchange profit was not taxable and should have been refunded. It ruled that limitation cannot justify retention of wrongly collected tax.
Observations regarding inconsistencies and possible backdating of documents led the Court to closely examine the claim. The case reflects interplay between arbitration findings and insolvency proceedings.
