Demand of service tax on remuneration paid to the Chairman and Directors was unsustainable as remuneration paid to the Directors constituted salary under an employer–employee relationship and was therefore not eligible to service tax.
The Court found that the explanation regarding dividend income was on record but not examined. Reopening based on an incorrect recording of facts was held to be invalid.
High Court quashed the adjustment made in the intimation under Section 143(1) disallowing deduction under Section 10B and declared the rectification order to be null and void as allowability of deduction under Section 10B was examined during regular assessment proceedings and accepted
Punjab and Haryana High Court held that bail application in the matter of fake GST input tax credit is allowed since investigation in the case is already completed and petitioner has been suffering from serious ailment. Accordingly, bail granted on medical ground.
The Tribunal accepted the anti-profiteering report after the respondent agreed to pay ₹67.02 crore to eligible homebuyers. The ruling directs payment within three months along with applicable interest, closing the dispute through an undertaking.
The Tribunal held that allegations of profiteering were not substantiated after detailed verification of records and returns. It concluded that GST liabilities were duly discharged and the complaint was liable to be dropped.
The High Court held that a bank cannot unilaterally reduce the interest rate agreed in a fixed deposit during its tenure. Depositors cannot be penalised for internal errors of the bank.
The Tribunal ruled that professional consultancy services rendered by a UAE resident are protected under Article 14 of the India–UAE DTAA. In absence of a fixed base or sufficient stay in India, exclusive taxing rights rest with the UAE.
The Supreme Court dismissed the Revenue’s appeal due to unexplained delay. This left intact the High Court ruling quashing reassessment based on a rejected share valuation.
The judgment reiterates that valuation must comply with statutory rules and cannot hinge on a single third-party transaction. Reassessment contrary to this principle was quashed.
