Services  |  Subscribe  |  Contact Us  |   Feedback   |  E-mail  |  News |  Home

Email | Print

Important Links         SC  HC  CESTAT  ITAT  AAR




M/s. J.P. Morgan Services India Private Limited Vs.
Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai

Service Tax: The applicant floated the scheme moreover as an employment retainment programme. Under the scheme, the applicant was to provide vehicles to its employees during the employment of the same. The applicant was to hire the cars from the car leasing companies and under the scheme those cars would be made available to such employees who are firstly continuing to be the employees of the applicant and secondly who accept the option to have the car for their personal as well as official use and in lieu of this, the company was to charge the said employees the same amount which the applicant would be paying to the car leasing company from whom they hire the car.

Cummins Limited
Vs. DCIT, Staines

whether the supply management service fees received by Cummins Limited, UK from Cummins Technologies India Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘CTIL’) pursuant to Material Suppliers Management Service Agreement between Cummins Limited and CTIL, is in the nature of “Fees for Technical Services” or “royalties” within the meaning of the term in Article 13 of the India-UK DTAA)?

Dow AgroSciences Agricultural Products Ltd.

(1) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the investment held by the Applicant in equity shares of Dow Agrosciences India Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘DAS India’) would be considered as ‘capital asset’ under section 2(14) of the Act? - 2. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, whether capital gains arising from the proposed transfer of shares of DAS India by the Applicant to DAS Singapore (a company proposed to be incorporated in Singapore), would be subject to tax in India?

Aberdeen Claims Administration Inc.

The issues involved in all three applications relate to taxability of the settlement amount received from Satyam Computers Services Limited and PWC under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961

Qualified Settlement Fund (QSF), USA
Vs. DCIT (IT), Hyderabad

The settlement amount payable/paid by Satyam under the stipulation to the QSF pursuant to the judgment and final approval of the US Court cannot be regarded as sum chargeable under the provisions of the Act in the hands of QSF

Aker Contracting FP ASA
Vs. DCIT (IT), Mumbai

1.Whether based on the stated facts of the case and in law, the consideration received by the Applicant under the Change Order for undertaking the following [before the floating production storage and offloading system, (‘FPSO’) arrived in India], is in the nature of business profits or in the nature of ‘fees for technical services’ as defined in the Explanation 2 of section 9(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’)?:

M/s Indus Towers Limited
Vs. CCE, Delhi

Service Tax: M/s Indus Towers Limited, is engaged in business of providing telecommunication infrastructure support services to mobile telecom operators in India. - The applicant is eligible to avail Cenvat Credit of Excise Duty under the Central Excise Act, 1944 / Additional Duty of Excise under Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 paid on parts and spares used for their replacement of the defective ones and Service Tax paid on inspection, Certification and engineering services etc. for the aforesaid repair and maintenance activities and claim set off against the output service tax paid for rendering of passive infrastructure service by the applicant to its customers

M/s SICPA India Pvt. Ltd.
Vs. CST, New Delhi

Service Tax: applicant offers services for the provision of automated, online ID and 2D bar code printing system, labeling application system, aggregation system and dispatch system in accordance with ESCIMS standard operating procedures for distilleries, breweries and wineries. The applicant has in this regard entered into System Delivery Agreements with said customers to provide for a System comprising of a complete set of various machines/ equipments which are installed and commissioned by the applicant as per ESCIMS

M/s. Creative  Problem  Solving India
Vs. CST, Mumbai

Service Tax: The applicant herein has entered into a MoU with one foreign firm IDEAS (i.e. IDEAS Management Consultants, Oman). Under that MoU, the applicant has agreed to become a Distributor of the books of various nature which will be supplied by IDEAS and those books will be sold to the various purchasers in India

M/s GoDaddy India Web Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CST, Gurgaon

Service Tax: the various support services proposed to be provided by the Applicant to GoDaddy US are a “bundle of Services” being naturally bundled in the ordinary course of business and accordingly is a single service, being business support service, in terms of Section 66F of the Finance Act -  the place of provision of business support service provided by the applicant, is outside India in terms of Rule 3 of the Place of Provision of Service Rules, 2012.

M/s Universal Services India Pvt. Ltd.
Vs. CST, Delhi

Service Tax: service provided by the applicant to WWD US is processing of payments, which is the main service. Further, applicant is providing this service to WWD US on his own account for a fee equal to the operating costs incurred by the applicant plus mark-up of 13% on such costs. Therefore it cannot be inferred that the applicant would be providing payment processing service to the Indian Customer, for the service rendered by WWD US to them. If that was the case, applicant would not receive any fees from WWD US in respect of payments by the Indian Customer remitted directly through International Credit Card to their service provider i.e., WWD US. But that is not the case. Further, the definition of “intermediary” as envisaged under Rule 2 (f) of POPS does not include a person who provides the main service on his own account. In the present case, applicant is providing main service i.e. “business support services” to WWD US and on his own account. Therefore, applicant is not an “intermediary” and the service provided by him is not intermediary service.

M/s Lakhani Footwear Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC (CE & ST), Dehradun

Applicant proposes to effect substantial expansion in the existing location by installing more than 25% additional plant and machinery and constructing new building; that thus there would be substantial expansion by 25% which qualifies as substantial expansion as per Board’s Circular No. 772/5/2004 CX. dated 21.1.2004; that for this Haridwar Plant-II, applicant would obtain separate factory license and E.S.I., PF Code; that applicant proposes to separate existing works with the proposed Haridwar Plant-II by putting a wall in between the two.

M/s Berco Undercarriages (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC, CE & ST, Hyderabad

Service Tax: While discharging foreign C & F Agent raised composite bill / invoice liability under reverse charge, Service Tax is chargeable on said bill / invoice excluding expenditure or costs incurred by C & F Agent as a pure agent, if conditions enumerated in Rule 5 of Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006 are met.

M/s Hyundai Rotem Company Vs. CC, CE & ST, Hyderabad

Service Tax: Applicant is eligible for claiming exemption from payment of Service Tax in terms of Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 for the activities in relation to Testing & Commissioning, Integrated Testing & Commissioning and Trial runs of Trains to be undertaken under the contract

M/s Choice Estates and Constructions Ltd.Vs. CC, CE & ST, Cochin

Service Tax: Applicant submits that they along-with Choice Foundation are partnering together to providing education services up to Higher Secondary School, which is a service mentioned in the Negative List under Section 66 D (1) of the Finance Act, 1994 -a) Service Tax is applicable on the revenue share relating to the applicant to the extent it is relatable to rendering of taxable service. - b) Service Tax is applicable on the revenue share relating to Choice Foundation to the extent it is relatable to rendering of taxable service.

M/s AKQA Media India Private Ltd. Vs. CST, Mumbai

Service Tax: In proposed Business Model 1, while the applicant shall be appointed by its clients i.e. the advertiser to provide services, incidental receipt of incentives/volume discounts from Media Owner shall not be considered to be providing a service, as defined under the Finance Act, 1994, to the Media Owner and shall not be liable to Service Tax.

T.T. Recycling Management India
Vs. CCE, Noida

Processing of secondary raw materials (steel scrap of difference and variable composition) into blended steel scrap is liable for payment of Central Excise duty under the provision of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

M/s. Nucleus Software Exports Ltd.
Vs. CCE, Bangaluru

The activity of loading of business software in the Nucleus Device by the applicant will not constitute manufacture under the Central Excise Law

M/s Global Transportation Services Private Limited
Vs. CST, Mumbai

Service Tax: The freight margin recovered by the applicant from its customer in an outbound shipment is not taxable under the Finance Act, 1994 in light of Rule 10 of Place of Provision Rules, 2012 on account of the fact that place of provision of service would be outside India.

M/s Samsung India Electronics Private Limited
Vs. CC, Delhi
we have to see whether Galaxy K Zoom is sold at phone shop / market or at camera shop / market. The answer is clear that such a product is sold at phone shop. Therefore, as per trade parlance and consumer perception test also, the product is mobile phone, classifiable under CTH 8517 12
M/s Middleby Celfrost Innovations Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC

Applicant submits that the business model of the applicant is such that it will not be known at the time of importation whether the goods to be imported will be sold to industrial consumer, institutional consumer or retail consumer. Further, there is always a possibility that the same may be sold to the retail consumer, in which case; there will be a requirement to affix MRP under the Legal Metrology Act read with Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules on such packages of goods to be imported.

M/s Prajesh Marketing Limited
Vs. CC

The benefit of the Notification No. 12/2012-Cus is available to NSOP (Non Schedule Operator’s Permit) holder for the following categories of revenue flights (with published tariff) proposed to be undertaken;

MERO Asia Pacific Pte Ltd. Vs. JCIT, Chennai
whether the amounts, received/receivable by the applicant from Larsen & Toubro towards offshore supply of goods and materials are liable to tax in India under the provisions of the Indian Income Tax Act read with the Agreement for the Avoidance of Double Taxation between India and Singapore?
UC Berkeley Center for Executive Education, USA VS. JCIT

(i) Whether programme fee received by the applicant in terms of clause 2 of the Programme Delivery Agreement is chargeable to tax in India as fees for included services within the meaning of the said term under Article 12 of India-US DTAA and/or the provisions of Section 9(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act and, therefore, subject to withholding tax under Section 195 of the Income Tax Act, 1961?


HOME ¦ Judgment ¦ Central Excise ¦ Customs  ¦ Service Tax ¦ Income Tax ¦ VAT ¦ Finance Act ¦ Finance Bills ¦ EOU STPI ¦ SEZ ¦ DGFT ¦ RBI ¦ NTT ¦ Resources 



  Copyright © 2006 | All rights reserved
website designing India & CMS development: Softlogics & Developments