The tribunal ruled that remuneration paid to a working partner cannot be disallowed when the partnership deed authorizes such payment and the amount is within limits prescribed under Section 40(b).
The High Court set aside the assessment order after noting that it was passed ex parte and remitted the matter for fresh proceedings with an opportunity for the assessee to file a return.
The Gauhati High Court interfered with both the recovery notice and the earlier adjudication order, directing that the matter be reconsidered after giving the petitioner an opportunity to respond.
The Madras High Court quashed a government order allotting sand dune land as an alternative site for a school, holding that such ecologically sensitive land cannot be used for development.
The tribunal held that expatriate personnel working under the full control and supervision of the Indian company were employees, not service providers, and therefore payments relating to their salaries were not liable to service tax.
The High Court held that once a discharge certificate under the SVLDRS scheme is issued after payment of the determined amount, the tax demand for the covered period cannot be reopened.
The Madras High Court held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed where a DTAA claim was made based on a bona fide interpretation of law and full disclosure of income.
The Tribunal held that AMC services involving indeterminate acts over a defined period must follow the straight-line method under Section 43CB. The addition of ₹4.26 crore towards AMC receipts was therefore deleted.
The High Court upheld a ₹7 lakh addition after finding a major discrepancy between stock recorded in books and the inflated stock statement submitted to the bank.
CESTAT ruled that communication from the supplier and supporting photographs clarified the actual quantity of imported memory modules, negating the charge of mis-declaration.
