In view of the agreement and various judicial pronouncements the hon’ble tribunal has held that there is a distinction between a case where the software is supplied along with hardware as part of the equipment and there is no separate sale of the software and a case where the software is sold separately. In the case, where the software is an integral part of the supply of equipment, the consideration for that is not assessable as “royalty”
We are aware that adopting a liberal view in condoning delay is one of the guiding principles in the realm of belated appeals, but liberal approach cannot be equated with a licence to file appeals at will-disregarding the time limits fixed by the statutes.
In consultation with RBI, after taking into account feedback from market participants and Stock Exchanges, it has been decided to permit stock exchanges to introduce cash settled Interest Rate Futures on 10-Year Government of India Security.
In view of above order and respectfully following the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal (supra), we decide Ground No.2 of the appeal in favour of assessee. Accordingly, we hold that the income arising from transaction in derivative by assessee(s), being sub-account FII cannot be treated as business profit or loss.
Section 132B(4) (b) deals with pre-assessment period and there is no conflict between this provision and Section 240 or for that matter 244 (A). The former deals with pre assessment period in the matters of search and seizure and the later deals with post assessment period as per the order in appeal.
Notification No.14/2013 Dated 22/10/2013: Service tax exemption for factory canteen Needs Immediate further clarification: INTRODUCTION: CBEC issued a notification No.14/2013 dated 22 October 2013 in which exemption given from service tax for Services provided in relation to serving of food or beverages by a canteen maintained in a factory covered under the Factories Act, 1948 […]
Factually, we find that the onus cast upon the assessee has been discharged by giving a cogent and reliable explanation. Therefore, if the department did not agree with the explanation, then the onus was on the department to prove that there was concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.
In exercise of the powers conferred by section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), and in super session of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue)
