H.L.S. Asia Limited Vs. State of Tripura
the petitioner merely worked as a service provider and, for the purpose of rendering services, under the contract agreement, the petitioner had mobilized equipments and accessories in order to execute the works contract and the respondents could not show any material to prove any element of transfer of right to use any of the equipments/accessories by the petitioner to the ONGC. It is, no doubt, that tax is chargeable in the event of transfer of the property in goods or if there is a deemed transfer, and, as it has already been decided by this Court, there was no element of transfer of right to use any goods and therefore, the petitioner was not chargeable to pay sales tax.
Modern Denim Ltd. Vs. CCE, Ahmedabad
CESTAT was right in law in allowing the appeal of the assessee by holding that the amount deposited by the assessee during the pendency of the investigation cannot be said to have been paid by them voluntarily towards the duty for relevant period in the show cause notice, when the said show cause notice has been held to be time-barred
DLF Commercial Projects Corporation & Anr. Vs. ACIT & Ors.
Question No.2: There is nothing on record to show that there was any fresh development between 26th December and 27th December, 2011 compelling the AO to change his mind and come to the conclusion that “certain complexities have been noted in the accounts of the assessee” and therefore special audit was required to be carried out.
Welspun Gujarat Sthal Rohren Ltd. Vs. CCE, Ahmedabad
Service Tax: The Tribunal on an appreciation of the material on record was of the view that the assessee held a bona fide belief that it was liable to pay customs duty on the drawings and designs imported by it as the same were goods. Under the circumstances, no mala fide intention could be attributed to it in not discharging the service tax liability under the category of “Intellectual Property Rights Services”. It is in the light of the aforesaid observations that the Tribunal found the assessee had shown reasonable cause for failure to discharge its service tax liability and was therefore, entitled to relief under section 80 of the Act.
M/s Nilesh Developers Vs. ITO, Baroda
the Tribunal was right in law in dismissing the appeal of the revenue and allowing the deduction u/s.80IB(10) claimed by the assessee, without appreciating that the approval by the local authority as well as completion certificate was not granted to the assessee firm but to the landowner and the rights and the obligations under the said approval were not transferable.
M/s. Arunachala Gounder Textile Mills Private Limited Vs. CCE, Salem
Service Tax: the appropriation of the amounts, to the extent of Rs.18,32,782/-, towards the alleged service tax dues said to be payable by the petitioner, from the amount of Rs.47,00,094/- said to be due to the petitioner as export duty rebate, cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
M/s Ansal Housing Finance and Leasing Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT, Delhi
1) Whether the ITAT is correct in holding that expenses incurred on the maintenance of accommodation provided to its employees and executives in Iraq is not disallowable? - 2) Whether the ITAT is correct in holding that the depreciation claimed on motor cars purchased and used in Iraq is allowable to the assessee?
M. Visvesvaraya Industrial Research & Development Centre Vs. CIT, Mumbai
The assessee never engaged itself in any activity related to the professed charitable purposes. The assessee neither derived the income from the property held under trust for the alleged charitable purposes nor applied the income therefrom to such purposes. There is nothing on record which even remotely suggests that the said property i.e. the assessee’s right, title or interest in the said land and the construction put up by it thereon was held under trust wholly for charitable or religious purposes
Fiat India Automobiles Limited Vs. ACIT, Mumbai
we quash and set aside the impugned notice dated 30.03.2012 issued by the ACIT10( 1) Mumbai based on the corrigendum order dated 27.03.2012 passed allegedly by the CIT10 Mumbai at the behest of ACIT10( 1) Mumbai and in gross abuse of the process of law. Apart from the fact that the CIT10 Mumbai had no jurisdiction to temporarily suspend an order passed under Section 127(2) of the Act, in the fact of the present case, the impugned corrigendum order passed behind the back of the petitioner without issuing any notice to the petitioner, without hearing the petitioner and admittedly uncommunicated to the petitioner till date, would have no legal existence and therefore the impugned notice dated 30.03.2012 based on the legally non-existent corrigendum order dated 27.03.2012 cannot be sustained.
Karan Monomers P. Ltd. Vs. CC, Gujarat
What really fails to convince the court is that the period of 933 days was whiled away. The case is that the Department had taken follow up action does not become acceptable in as much as it is not possible to fathom that for almost three years the affairs at the end of the Department remained at a standstill. If that be so, it was only a gross negligence. In the circumstances, there is no bonafide explanation for passage of time resulting into inordinate delay of 933 days.
M/s NCL Industries Ltd. Vs. CC & CE, Hyderabad
CESTAT placed reliance on the decision in Vandana’s case though in M/s APP Mills Ltd. the Tribunal held that the decision of in Vandana’s case is no longer good law in view of the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in Rajasthan Spinning Mills case (3rd supra). In the circumstances, the order of the Tribunal impugned herein directing the petitioner to pre-deposit Rs. 2.5 crores as against the total disputed tax of Rs. 5.04 crores cannot be sustained.
M/s. Schmetz India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT, Mumbai
Whether the Tribunal was justified - (A) in coming to the conclusion that there was nothing on record to show that the profits arrived at by the assessee in respect of the 10A unit carrying on the business of manufacturing Industrial Sewing Machine Needless was not in the normal course of its business and that the abnormally high profit was due to extraordinary arrangement between the assessee and the German company entered into only with a view to boost the profits of assessee and therefore allowing deduction of Rs. 20,54,27,335/- ?
V S Hostel Vs. ITO, Barida
the Tribunal as well as the Commissioner (Appeals) have recorded concurrent findings of fact to the effect that the transactions in question were not in the nature of loans or deposits. On a plain reading of the provisions of section 269SS and 269T of the Act, it is amply clear that the said provisions would be attracted when loans or deposits in excess or twenty thousand rupees are made or repaid. Thus, a basic precondition for falling within the ambit of the said provisions is the existence of a loan or deposit. both, the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal have found that the transactions in question are neither in the nature of loans or deposits. the provisions of sections 269SS and 269T of the Act would not be applicable. Consequently, the question of contravention of such provisions attracting penalty under sections 271D and 271E of the Act would also not arise.
Usha International Ltd. Vs. CIT, Delhi
tax authorities came to know that even the donation made by the assessee was bogus original return was filed on 28.06.1983, about four months before the date of survey/ impounding of cash book and it was only after the survey that the assessee chose to file a revised return on 05.12.1983 withdrawing the claim for deduction under Section 35CCA. the revised return was not filed voluntarily but was filed only when the assessee was cornered and evidence had been collected by the income tax authorities regarding the falsity of the assessee’s claim.
M/s. SBQ Steels Limited Vs. CC, CE & ST, Guntur
the impugned show cause notice by use of the words “it is clear” at various places as pointed out above clearly suggests predetermination by the respondent of the liability of the petitioner. The fact that it even quantified the amount of Cenvat Duty wrongly availed of by the petitioner allegedly, corroborates this view.
M/s. Hero Honda Motors Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax
Service Tax: assessee was entitled to the benefit of claiming payment of service tax on GTA services through adjustment of CENVAT credit.
M/s Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. CCE, and C, Ahmedabad
Larger Bench: Whether in view of the provisions contained in Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, the decisions of this Court in case of Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Ahmedabad-I v. GDN Garments, and Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs V. BIOPAC India Corporation Ltd., lay down correct law in holding that even after remission of duty upon destruction of final product, the manufacturer is not required to reverse the Cenvat Credit on the inputs used in manufacturing such final product?
Garg Dyeing & Processing Industries Vs. ACIT, New Delhi
the rent received by the appellant was assessable as “income from other sources. - The real test which has been applied by the Tribunal, and rightly so is to see whether the letting is a composite or inseparable letting and if it is so, the rent falls for being assessed under the residual head of income and not under the head “property”. The order of the Tribunal and the finding that the letting out of the plant, machinery or furniture and the premises constituted a single, composite and inseparable letting is based on the tests laid down by the constitution bench of the Supreme Court
Fair Finvest Ltd. Vs. CIT, Delhi
in the reassessment proceedings, the revenue sought to tax the income which had escaped assessment. This resulted in addition to the tune of Rs. 55,01,125/-. This was on account of share application money which was received during the previous year in question.
Intercontinental Consultants and Technorats Pvt. Ltd. Vs. UOI & Anr.
Service Tax: constitutional validity of Rule 5 of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006 to the extent it includes re-imbursement of expenses in the value of taxable services for the purposes of levy of service tax. -Rule 5(1) of the Rules, in as much as it provides that all expenditure or costs incurred by the service provider in the course of providing the taxable service shall be treated as consideration for the taxable service and shall be included in the value for the purpose of charging service tax goes beyond the mandate of Section 67 merits acceptance. Section 67 as it stood both before 01.05.2006 and after has been set out hereinabove. This section quantifies the charge of service tax provided in Section 66, which is the charging section. Section 67, both before and after 01.05.2006 authorises the determination of the value of the taxable service for the purpose of charging service tax under Section 66 as the gross amount charged by the service provider for such service provided or to be provided by him, in a case where the consideration for the service is money. The underlined words i.e. “for such service” are important in the setting of Section 66 and 67. The charge of service tax under Section 66 is on the value of taxable services. The taxable services are listed in Section 65(105). The service provided by the petitioner falls under clause (g). It is only the value of such service that is to say, the value of the service rendered by the petitioner to NHAI, which is that of a consulting engineer, that can be brought to charge and nothing more. The quantification of the value of the service can therefore never exceed the gross amount charged by the service provider for the service provided by him. Even if the rule has been made under Section 94 of the Act which provides for delegated legislation and authorises the Central Government to make rules by notification in the official gazette, such rules can only be made “for carrying out the provisions of this Chapter” i.e. Chapter V of the Act which provides for the levy, quantification and collection of the service tax. The power to make rules can never exceed or go beyond the section which provides for the charge or collection of the service tax.
Sh. Kanwaljit Singh Vs. CIT, Delhi
The assessee continued to earn the non-compete commission in his capacity as an employee, to refrain from carrying on any business similar to that of UC. The assessee, in this case, also continued his employment with the firm, and was given commission for doing what he was normally expected to do, i.e. work for the said firm in his area of expertise. He was given salary for that; in addition, he was also given commission for not competing with his employer, during his employment, in regard to the same line of business, in which he worked as an employee of the firm. Therefore, the commission amount clearly was part of salary answering the description under the inclusive definition under Section 17 of the Act.
Meinhardt Singapore Pte. Ltd. Vs. ADIT, International Taxation, New Delhi
the AO in the original proceedings had examined and was aware of the two agreements. He was also aware that Quest had received payments from NHAI and that these were not included in the taxable income or receipts of the income. He was also aware that the petitioner‘s income was taxed on the gross receipt basis under Section 115J. There was no lapse or fault on the part of the assessee. Full facts were on record and the Assessing Officer accepted the returns. If at all, there was a lapse on the part of the Assessing Officer to understand the legal position. At best, the case of the Revenue can be that the Assessing Officer had wrongly applied, and did not appreciate the legal position. This cannot be a ground to reopen finalised regular assessments for the said years
M/s. Tien Yuan India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Mumbai
The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Menthol liquid BP/USP/ Menthol crystal BP/Us, Rectified Paper Mint Oil. Menthone, Mint, Terpene etc. which are cleared for export under bond as well as for home consumption. The appellant had filed 12 refund claims under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (Cenvat Rules) on the ground that they were unable to utilise the cenvat credit taken on inputs used in the manufacture of the final products cleared for exports under bond/letter of undertaking.
Infrastructure Development Finance Co. Ltd. Vs. JCIT, Chennai
Even though the parameter for considering the expenditure and income is not the same, yet, the principle to be followed is that when the instrument concerned is certain as to its period of life and specifically points out to a particular interest amount to be paid on the maturity date, the question of assessing the entire interest in the first year itself, does not arise. In the circumstances, we have no hesitation in setting aside the order of the Tribunal, holding that the question of assessing the entire interest income of Rs.3,10,43,664/- in the assessment year 1997-98 does not arise.
M/s. Sanghvi and Doshi Enterprise Vs. CIT, Chennai
the assessee was entitled to the relief under Section 80IB of the Income Tax Act and the absence of ownership would not disentitle the assessee, as a developer from claiming relief under Section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act.
Sri. T. Jayachandran Vs. DCIT, Chennai
we reject the Tribunal's view that the evidence before the Criminal Court have no bearing on the issues raised before the Tribunal. We hold that the status of the assessee vis-a-vis Indian Bank was only that of a broker of Indian Bank and nothing else.
Lease Plan India & Anr. Vs. DCIT, Delhi
the actions of the Revenue were violative of the stay order of this Court; they were also contrary to the provisions of Section 245 of the Income Tax Act. The term “recovery" includes adjustment of the refund due to the assessee. Thus the High Court order which directed that the assessment proceedings “would not be given effect to without the leave of the court” translated to a bar on adjustments as well. Furthermore, Section 245 is clear in its mandate regarding the requirement of prior intimation in writing to the assessee whose refunds are being adjusted against amounts payable to the Revenue; the assessee has to be given notice, and heard. The revenue clearly did not follow the provision, and give any notice or hearing before making adjustments, impugned in this case
M/s. Sanghvi Swiss Refills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Mumbai
the Tribunal has reached a finding of fact that the appellant had filed inaccurate particulars regarding its income by showing false/exaggerated expenses. Therefore in the present case the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act stand attracted. Making of a claim on admitted/disclosed facts is different from filing false/inaccurate particulars. In the present case, the details furnished by the appellant were found to be inaccurate leading to a concealment of income on the part of the appellant. In view of the above, we find no fault with the order of the Tribunal dated 14th May, 2010 upholding penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act upon the appellant.
Sangeeta WIG Vs. CIT, Delhi
the amount of Rs. 1,20,00,000/- received by assessee, towards consideration pursuant to the memorandum of understanding signed by her with the newly inducted shareholder, was capital gain.
Multiple Exports Private Limited & Ors. Vs. UOI & Anr.
in order to get the credit of CENVAT, Rule 7(2) cast a further duty upon the appellants to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the inputs or the capital goods in respect of which the appellants had taken credit of CENVAT are the goods on which appropriate duty of excise as indicated in the documents accompanying the goods, has been paid. We further pointed out that the Explanation added to Rule 7(2) even describes the instances which are the reasonable steps. In those cases, the appellants not having taken those steps, we held that the benefit of credit even though he is not party to the fraud, is not available.
M/s Cadila Healthcare Ltd. Vs. CCE, Ahmedabad
Service Tax: CENVAT credit is not admissible in respect of the commission paid to commission agents - assessee was entitled to avail of CENVAT credit in relation to service tax paid in relation to technical testing and analysis services availed by it.
M/s. Deloitte Tax Service India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC and CE, Hyderabad
Service Tax: M/s. Deloitte Tax Services India Private Limited, a private limited company, under 100% EOU registered with the STPI, Hyderabad provided various services to M/s.Deloitte Tax LLP, USA like back office services , lead tax services, international assignment services, etc under an Agreement for Services and Development dated 27-09-2004. The assessee got registered under the categories of "business auxiliary service" and "management consultancy service" with the jurisdictional service tax authority.
M/s Bharti Televentures Ltd. Vs. Addl./Jt. CIT, Delhi
(i) Whether the Tribunal fell into error in holding that Rs. 1,35,05,869/- paid by the assessee as installation expenditure by the assessee was capital in nature and has to be treated as such in assessment proceedings?
M/s Abhishek Industries Limited Vs. CIT, Ludhiana
The respondent-assessee, in the present case, had in its return of income tax, claimed deduction under Section 80IA at Rs. 12.01 crores and Section 80HHC of the IT Act at Rs. 5.75 crores and declared the total income of Rs. 82.47 lacs. The AO allowed the deduction under Section 80IA to the tune of Rs. 14.04 crores and deduction under Section 80HHC to the tune of Rs. 2.42 crores. The CIT on perusal of the assessment order found the assessment order to be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue and rightly so as deduction under Section 80HHC was allowed on eligible profits of business without reducing the profits of business on which deduction under Section 80IA had been allowed. There was, thus, contravention of Section 80IA(9), which clearly indicates the extent of restriction to which the deduction under other provision of Chapter VI-A of IT Act can be allowed in cases where relief has been given on the profits and gains under Section 80IA of IT Act