"05 May 2013" Archive

Ignorance of law not ‘reasonable cause’ for failure to pay service tax so as to warrant waiver of penalties

Maganti Rama Rao Vs The Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Bangalore)

In my considered opinion, the appellant fell within the ambit of "outdoor caterer" as defined at all times inasmuch as he was admittedly catering food to Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Ltd. at a place owned by the latter and it is not the case of the appellant that he was the owner of those premises. In this view of the matter, it is held that...

Read More

CESTAT cannot review its own order and can only rectifiy apparent mistake

Advance Petrochemical Co. Vs Designated Authority (CESTAT Delhi)

In the case of Oswal Petrochemicals Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that the statute does not provide any remedy by way of review. There are other decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to the effect that in the absence of specific statutory provision. Tribunal cannot exercise review powers and only rectific...

Read More

No Service tax on Road Toll Charges under BAS

Ideal Road Builders (P.) Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai (CESTAT Mumbai)

If on the basis of an agreement between the State authority and the concessionaire for construction of roads, the contractor is authorised to collect the toll charges from the users of the roads for the services rendered and the entire activity is done on Build-Own/Operate-Transfer basis, there is no service tax liability. Construction...

Read More

Security services used for securing office premises are eligible as input service

M/s C. Cubed Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Bangalore)

The appellant being an IT related service provider, undisputedly, the recruitment of manpower was, obviously for rendering those services and what further details were required by the department are not forthcoming. Similarly, the 'security agency services' are used for securing their office premises. Therefore, there is no justification ...

Read More

CBEC circular on recovery of dues during pendency of stay application is within power of Board

Gujarat State Fertilizer Co Ltd Vs Union of India Thro Secretary & 4 (Gujarat High Court)

Section 37 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is a rule making power of the Government. Sub-section (1) of section 37 provides that the Central Government may make rules to carry into effect the purposes of the Act. Sub-section (2) of section 37 provides that in particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power such r...

Read More

Incentive for promotion of capital investment is capital receipt

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Birla VXL Ltd. (Gujarat High Court)

Incentive scheme was framed as a part of Government's initiative to encourage modernization of existing industries in under-developed areas. The main purpose of the scheme was to accelerate the industrial development and to disperse industries to under-developed areas as well as to provide additional employment....

Read More

Rental income from business centre is business income

M/s. Krishna Land Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax (ITAT Mumbai)

The undisputed fact is that the property in question is an I.T. Park, with all infrastructure facilities and services. This is not a simple building. The Ministry of Commerce and Industries, notifies certain building as I.T. Park only if various facilities and infrastructure, as specified by the Department, are provided. It is an undisput...

Read More

Partnership deed can be rectified with retrospective effect

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs M/s Alison Singh & Co. (Allahabad High Court)

The partnership is governed under the provisions the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. Section-4 defines partnership as "Partnership is the relation between persons who have agreed to share the profits of a business carried on by all or any of them acting for all". Section-5 provides that the relation of the partnership may be reduced in writ...

Read More

No disallowance can be made U/s. 14A with regard to investment in foreign subsidiaries

M/s. Suzlon Energy Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad)

We find that with regard to the investment of Rs. 5907.18 lakhs in foreign subsidiaries, no disallowance can be made under section 14A because dividend income from foreign subsidiaries is taxable in India. Regarding balance investment of Rs. 38 crores approximately in Indian subsidiaries, we find that interest-free own funds of the assess...

Read More

Penalties to be waived if assessee had bona fide belief for non-payment of service tax

M/s Jalaram Mandap Decorators Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE (CESTAT Ahmedabad)

Appellant is a registered mandap keeper and was issued a show cause notice. There could be a situation where the appellant could be under a bona fide belief as to not to discharge the Service Tax liability on the advance amount received, during the material period, the issue of Service Tax liability under the Mandap Keeper services also w...

Read More

Featured Posts