Service Tax: in view of the mutuality and in view of the activities of the club, if club provides any service to its members may be in any form including as mandap keeper, then it is not a service by one to another in the light of the decisions referred above as foundational facts of existence of two legal entities in such transaction is missing. However, so far as services by the club to other than members, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that they are paying the tax.

So far as benefit of the proviso under section 11AC is concerned, that was available to the appellant as statutory benefit. It may be true that the Division Bench of Delhi High Court issued instruction to the authorities to incorporate the intimation to the assessee of condition of payment within 30 days to take the benefit of waiver of 75% of penalty and interest amount but that is a guideline which cannot be the reason for giving benefit to the person who did not deposit the amount in time knowing the law very well and tried to evade the provisions of law and further to the person who did not deposit such amount before preferring the appeal. The appellant, even before lower appellate authority, did not pray to permit him to deposit 25% of the amount of penalty and interest, therefore, we are not inclined to extend that period available under section 11AC and thus, the appellant is not entitled to such benefit.

(1) Whether learned ITAT erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,19,07,201/- made by the AO on account of alleged understatement of sale of bullion by invoking the provisions of section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961?

the waste of scrap of iron and steel which had arisen out of dismantling of old worn out machines is not exigible item.  - unserviceable pieces of wires and cables are not exigible goods.

Substantial questions of law referred to a larger Bench:  - (i) What is meant by the term “change of opinion? - (ii) Whether assessment proceedings can be validly reopened under Section 147 of the Act, even within four year, if an assessee has furnished full and true particulars at the time of original assessment with reference to income alleged to have escaped assessment and whether and when in such cases reopening is valid or invalid on the ground of change of opinion?

I. Whether the respondent was not liable to deduct the tax at source for the relevant year on account of the payment made by it to its franchisees under Section 194C of the Act, as held by the ITAT in the impugned order? - II. Whether the AO did not rightly reject the claim of the respondent making the addition of Rs.6,38,64,018/- to income of the respondent for the relevant year on account of non-deduction of TDS in terms of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act?

AO was justified in making the addition of Rs.75 lac, being the difference between the apparent consideration and real value of the assets of M/s Span Properties Private Limited

1. Whether payments received by the assessee in consideration of services rendered to insurance Co. in India in the process of re-insurance of the risk placed by Indian Insurance Co. with international re-insuracne companies is amounted to “fees for technical services” within the meaning of the same under the DTAA between India and U.K?

The real issue and question involved in the present case is, whether or not the agreement in question was a finance agreement or an operating lease. The aforesaid question cannot be decided by merely looking at the title of the agreement itself or the nomenclature given to the said agreement. The terms and conditions mentioned in the agreement may be relevant but we have to also take into account the surrounding circumstances as well as the type and nature of the asset

the provisions of Section 96ZO permitting the minimum penalty for delay in payment without any discretion and without having regard to extent and circumstances for delay are held to be ultra vires of the Act and the Constitution of India. 

Service Tax: Though the department has recovered the duty evaded on account of service tax dues together with interest, the matter has not attained finality. The payment of a reward at this stage cannot be directed, less so by the Court in the exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

the Tribunal was justified in holding that interest free funds available with the Assessee are much more than the amount invested in Reliance Infocomm Limited (subsidiary of Assessee) and advances given to Reliance Industries Limited, even though the sources of funds without considering secured loans are not sufficient for the application of funds as can be seen from the working based on the funds received during the year and its application and even though the Annual Accounts of Reliance Industries Limited discloses only an amount of Rs.455.26 crores as having received from the Assessee towards guarantee whereas the Assesee's was showing advances of Rs.476 crores to Reliance Industries Limited, clearly indicating that the Assessee does not have its own funds for making investment in the subsidiary or for advances to Reliance Industries Limited and therefore borrowed funds have been utilized and interest on a pro rata basis has been rightly disallowed by the AO.

Service Tax: the authority issuing the summon must issue summons to a witness only when the authority considers it necessary for summoning. This necessarily implies application of mind and is guided by the principles of reasonableness in the matter of summoning of witness and, therefore, as we have already observed that in the matter of summoning witnesses, there must be reasonableness and the guiding condition is that the witness is necessary for the purpose of inquiry.

Whether ITAT was right in holding that the gains/income from sale and purchase of securities was assessable under the head “capital gains” and not under the head “income from business”?

the condition precedent for exercising power of reopening the assessment as provided in Section 147 of the Act is absent and the AO acted illegally in issuing notice of reassessment by forming a second opinion on the selfsame materials without having any “tangible material” to exercise jurisdiction.

(i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the sum of Rs.16,47,766/- was not allowable as expenditure on repairs? - (ii) Whether the finding of the tribunal that the expenditure of Rs.16,47,766/- is capital in nature is inter-alia based on material not disclosed to the assessee and is hereby vitiated ?

Notification No.14/1997 dated May 3, 1997 restricting admissibility of Modvat credit for all the petroleum products to the extent of 10% irrespective of the fact that whether the inputs were manufactured in India or the inputs were imported into India, being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, is hereby quashed and set-aside

(1) Whether procedure under Section 245 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is being followed before making adjustment of refunds and whether assessees are being given full details with regard to demands, which are being adjusted.

A manufacture manufacturing excisable goods but exempt from registration formalities under Rule 9 (1) for the reason that he is availing SSI exemption and the value of his clearances during the financial are within the full exemption limit, does not cease to be a manufacturer of exisable goods and therefore, capital goods Cenvat credit in terms of the provisions of Rule 3(1) read with Rule 4 of CCR, 2002 could not be denied to him for this reason