The Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka held that it is settled law that Sales tax can’t be attracted until effective control is transferred. Since CBUs did not get effective control over the brand name as such, it could not be considered as sale of intangible goods.
High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that if dealers engaged in the construction and sale of residential apartments, houses, buildings or commercial complexes, exercise an option, and comply with the conditions stipulated in Section 4(7)(d) of the Andhra Pradesh VAT Act and Rule made thereunder
Preservation of stem cells by cord blood banks is exempted only w.e.f. February 17, 2014/ Exemption Notification will have prospective effect when nothing specifically mentioned in the Notification as such. Life Cell International (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India (MADRAS HIGH COURT)
Reliance Infratel Ltd. Vs. CCE (CESTAT Mumbai) Reliance Infratel Ltd. was engaged in the business of providing ‘passive wireless telecom infrastructure’. The Appellant and its associated enterprise entered into an MOU whereby the Appellant granted Associated enterprise an indefeasible right to use 80% of the total capacity of its optic fibre cable network for 10 years.
The Department has confirmed the demand against Expera India Pvt. Ltd. and others (the Appellants) and held that reimbursement of expenses are to be included in the gross value of the services in terms of the provisions of Rule 5(1) of the Service Tax Valuation Rules.
Department cannot file FIR under provisions of IPC for alleged non-payment of Service tax as the Finance Act being a special and complete Code prevails over general provisions of IPC- Ajay Kumar Sandhu Vs. State of Haryana [2015 (62) taxmann.com281 (Punjab & Haryana)]
AGM India Advisors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax (CESTAST Mumbai)- Remittance against export of services received in Indian Rupees but through foreign bank is deemed to be received in convertible foreign exchange – Export condition stands satisfied.
Delhi High Court held In the case of Vishwanath Khanna vs. CCIT that as per section 293, no civil suit lies against the Income Tax Department with respect to any dues claimed from the Income Tax Department if such dues are/can be the subject matter of proceedings under the Income Tax Act.
Delhi High Court held In the case of Johnson Matthey India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT that the purpose of transfer pricing is to benchmark transactions between related parties in order to discover the true price if such entities were unrelated.
Delhi High Court held In the case of Jet Lite (India) Ltd. vs. CIT that the ITAT has rightly pointed out that the supplement rental was within the ambit of the original provision of Section 10 (15A). Post amendment w.e.f. 1st April 1996
