It is an admitted case that the assessee did not file any objection to the said revision and on the other hand, the disallowance of the gratuity provision was accepted by the assessee. Therefore, the levy of additional tax is only a consequential event to the prima facie adjustment, which was carried out through the order passed under Section 154. The Assessing Authority had rightly levied the additional tax by his order under Section 154.
Regarding, the issue of technology transfer fee receipts, whether it constitutes operational income or not, learned counsel brought the analogy of these receipts to the developmental works receipts, which is adjudicated by the hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Motor Industries Co. Ltd. (supra). In our opinion, there is a need for finding the fact on the comparability of these receipts on account of developmental work vis-a-vis technology transfer fees raised before us. In case, these receipts are comparable, in our opinion, the assessee is entitled for claiming deduction under section 80HHC as an operational income in view of the finding of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Motor Industries Co. Ltd. (supra).
It is not the case of the assessee that payment of such commission is as per prevailing practice of the trade. When supply of goods is made to Government Departments, commission is not allowable unless it is established that commission was paid for services other than services related to supply of goods to Government Department. As regards working of Government Department, we are of the view that public officials are expected to discharge their duties dispassionately, and decide on the merits of each case.
With regard to section 3 of the Act, the informant stated that OP1 (in its board meeting held on 16.04.2012) decided that Joint Plant Committee (JPC) would be collecting and furnishing price data to OP 1 so as to enable it to have a long term pricing methodology. This, along with existence of price parallelism resulted in a collusion under section 3 (3)(a) of the Act.
The appellants shall be eligible for the credit of rent-a-cab service provided, they are able to satisfy that the rent-a-cab service has been utilized for transport of employees/officials or business related visitors to their factory/office. These submissions have not been specifically made before the authorities below, as rightly pointed by the learned Superintendent (AR). Under these circumstances, I deem it appropriate to set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and remand the matter to the original authority for fresh consideration after granting opportunity to the assessee to produce additional evidence and granting them reasonable opportunity of hearing. All the issues are kept open.
Undisputedly the respondent deposited the amount at the investigation stage and the proceeding initiated against them were dropped by ld. Commissioner (Appeals) vide his order dated 9-2-2011. It is a case of refund of deposit of duty and not a refund of duty therefore the principle of unjust enrichment which is applicable to refund of duty is not applicable in this case.
Income from auction of abandoned cargo not taxable under Storage & Warehousing Services as its a sale – Even though the appellant is the custodian of the goods and not the owner, still transfer to title of the goods takes place during the auction and hence it is to be treated as a sale. The fact of sale is also evident from the sales tax having been paid by the successful bidder. Thus, when the transaction is one of sale and not a service, the question of payment of Service tax will never arise.
MD of the appellant company also performed the job of MD of M/s Brembo Brakes India Ltd. for which he was compensated. If at all, any advisory activity was undertaken by the said person, the demand for Service Tax can be made only on him and not on the appellant. Further, there is no evidence on record to show that the MD of the appellant firm rendered any consultancy/advisory services. He actually functioned as the MD of the other company also, therefore, the remuneration received by him through the appellant company does not come under the category of ‘Management Consultancy Services’ in terms of the Board’s Circular cited above.
we are of the considered opinion that the designs and drawings which were imported and assessed as ‘goods’, cannot be subjected to Service tax, hence, no Service tax is chargeable on that part of the contract relating to Contract No. CRMP/CON/SPM/03 dated 16-7-1998 attributing towards the value of designs and drawings.
It may be noted that the said system would only allow submission of application by those licensed surveyors whose license are in force as on date and are duly categorized.
