The judgment confirms that income from offshore equipment supply is not taxable where transactions occur outside India. The liaison office was also held not to create a taxable presence. The case highlights limits of tax jurisdiction over cross-border supplies.
The Tribunal held that lack of awareness of the assessment order and limited knowledge of tax law constituted sufficient cause for delay. The matter was restored for reconsideration on merits.
The Tribunal confirmed addition of unexplained investments where the assessee could not substantiate the source of deposits. The ruling reinforces the burden of proof on the taxpayer.
The Tribunal held that wage arrears arising from pay revision constitute an accrued liability from the effective date. The provision was allowed despite later payment and quantification.
The Tribunal ruled that coal extraction and processing constitute manufacture, not mining services, making service tax demand unsustainable and reinforcing mutual exclusivity of tax levies.
The Tribunal supported the CIT(A)s decision to allow a new claim under Section 10A, noting that appellate proceedings are a continuation of assessment and aimed at determining correct tax liability.
The Court held that adjusting a refund against a disputed demand during the subsistence of a stay order is illegal and arbitrary, directing release of the refund with interest.
The Tribunal held that deduction cannot be rejected merely due to absence of supporting evidence without examining merits. It remanded the matter for fresh verification of the claim.
The Tribunal held that a penalty notice lacking clarity on whether it relates to concealment or inaccurate particulars is invalid. It ruled that such a defect makes the penalty unsustainable.
Considering the duration of custody and the likely delay in trial, the Court found continued detention unnecessary. It granted bail while noting that the case would be decided on merits later.
