The Tribunal examined whether foreign assignment salary credited in India is taxable. It held that salary for services rendered outside India is not taxable, even if received in India.
The Tribunal examined whether VRS compensation could be restricted under section 10(10B). It held that the scheme was effectively retrenchment, allowing full exemption and deleting the addition.
The issue was whether protective additions can survive when substantive additions are deleted. The ITAT held that once the substantive addition fails on merits, the protective addition based on the same material cannot be sustained.
The issue was whether a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) constituted transfer triggering capital gains. The tribunal held no taxable transfer occurred as rights were unsettled due to partition disputes and lack of finality.
Bright Line Test (BLT) could not be applied for determining the Arms Length Price (ALP) of Advertisement, Marketing, and Promotion (AMP) expenditure under the transfer pricing provisions.
Deprivation of property must be based on law which is just, fair and reasonable, the Supreme Court struck down the Bihar law that allowed the State to take over a historic library for a token compensation of just one rupee, holding that such a provision was “confiscatory” and failed constitutional scrutiny.
The company could not claim the concessional GST rate of 0.1% under Notification No. 41/2017-IT(Rate), as the supply of HDPE drums was made to a chemical manufacturer rather than directly to the registered merchant exporter.
The issue involved incorrect computation of interest on IGST refunds. The Court held that authorities failed to follow statutory provisions under Section 56. The key takeaway is that interest must be calculated strictly as per law.
The Tribunal held that a successful bidder cannot claim wide-ranging exemptions from statutory compliances. The key takeaway is that reliefs must be reasonable and legally permissible.
The issue involved an ex-parte GST order demanding ITC reversal without proper notice. The Court held that absence of opportunity to respond violated principles of natural justice. The key takeaway is that hearing is mandatory before passing adverse orders.
