The Court held that payments to pigmy agents qualify as employee wages, not taxable services. As a result, GST under reverse charge does not apply.
ITAT Delhi held that revisionary proceedings under 263 of the Income Tax Act justifiable since related-party expenses were accepted without detailed verification. Accordingly, revision is upheld and the present appeal is dismissed.
CESTAT Kolkata held that the charge of clandestine removal of goods cannot be proved on the basis of private records recovered during the course of investigation in the absence of any corroborative evidence in support. Accordingly, order set aside and appeal is allowed.
The Tribunal held that failure to issue a jurisdictional transfer order under Section 127 invalidates the assessment. It ruled that absence of such order renders proceedings void ab initio, irrespective of merits.
Madras High Court held that section 76 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 are not applicable since GST component is already remitted by GAIL [transmission vertical]. Accordingly, provisions of section 76 of CGST cannot be invoked. Hence, present petition is allowed.
CESTAT Allahabad held that electrical repair services provided to governmental entities is exempt from payment of service tax vide notification no. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012. Accordingly, the order is set aside and appeal is allowed.
The Tribunal ruled that the Department failed to prove that goods classified as trading were actually manufactured by the assessee. In absence of proper investigation, excise demand and penalties were held unsustainable.
The Supreme Court declined to condone delay, thereby upholding the High Court’s conclusion that the liaison office did not constitute a PE. The High Court found activities to be preparatory in nature. The ruling highlights strict standards for establishing PE in India.
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.
