The Tribunal deleted on-money additions where the tax department failed to establish a clear nexus between the assessee and alleged cash entries. Suspicion or unverified third-party material was held insufficient in law.
The tribunal held that Maximum Marginal Rate implies tax at the highest slab rate of 30%, not automatic levy of 37% surcharge. Surcharge must strictly follow slab thresholds prescribed in the Finance Act.
The High Court held that incentives earned by an advertising agency from media firms do not attract service tax when no separate service is rendered to them. The ruling clarifies that incidental incentives linked to core services are not taxable.
The ruling states that the appellate authority must decide grounds on merits after examining evidence, even if the assessee was non-cooperative. The case was sent back for reconsideration subject to costs.
The dispute concerned whether food sold at cinema counters involved a taxable service. The Tribunal held such transactions to be pure sales of goods and set aside the service tax demand with consequential relief.
The issue was whether an individual accused could be compelled to represent a corporate accused in a PMLA trial. The court held that only the company can appoint its representative and set aside the trial court’s order.
The Tribunal held that pension paid by the US government is taxable only in the United States under the India–USA DTAA. The key takeaway is that beneficial treaty provisions prevail over Indian tax law.
The Court declined to order criminal prosecution based on a complaint to the corporate regulator, holding such relief untenable in writ jurisdiction. The petitioner was left free to pursue remedies under the law.
The issue concerned distribution of liquidation proceeds amid disputes over worker claim verification. The court permitted interim payments while directing independent re-verification of disputed claims.
Delhi High Court upheld customs duty paid by a broadcasting company but quashed penalties on directors, recognizing that mis-declaration was for company benefit and not individual gain.
