The Tribunal examined whether leasing property to a company makes it taxable. It held that actual use determines taxability, not the identity of the lessee. Since the property was used for residential purposes, service tax demand was quashed.
The case addressed whether authorities can change the taxable category during adjudication. The Tribunal ruled that the show cause notice is the foundation and cannot be altered. The demand was set aside as it exceeded the scope of the notice.
The Tribunal held that although inclusion of freight and insurance was legally justified, the department failed to establish suppression or intent to evade duty. Consequently, the extended limitation period was held inapplicable and the demand was quashed.
High Court allowed restoration of GST registration even after dismissal of appeal on limitation grounds. Relief was granted subject to filing returns and payment of dues.
The Court held that serving notices at an outdated address violates natural justice. The proceedings were set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication.
CESTAT held that secondment of employees is taxable as manpower supply service. However, it set aside extended period demands due to absence of suppression.
Orissa High Court held that assessment order set aside as proceedings under section 148 of the Income Tax Act initiated without serving of statutory notice. Accordingly, matter remitted back to AO to serve notice u/s. 148 as not hit by limitation u/s. 149.
ITAT Mumbai held that rejection of registration under section 12AB of the Income Tax Act treating receipts and income from sale of agro and Gaushala products as commercial without examining the receipts being incidental and ancillary is not justifiable. Accordingly, matter restored to file of CIT(E).
The Tribunal held that margins earned from buying and selling cargo space are trading profits, not consideration for services. Such transactions on a principal-to-principal basis are not liable to service tax.
The case addressed whether delayed appeals can be entertained through writ jurisdiction. The Court ruled that statutory timelines are mandatory and cannot be circumvented.
