ADIT Vs. Ballast Nadam Dredging (ITAT Mumbai)- It was held that retention money withheld by the contractee pending completion of contract work does not accrue to the assessee/contractor in the year in which the amount is retained. We also observe that similar issue was also considered by ITAT in the case of Spirax Marshall Ltd (supra) wherein it was held that receipt of retention money against furnishing bank guarantee cannot partake character of income since it cannot be apportioned until guarantee period was over. The retention money may be received by the assessee; it cannot be apportioned until expiry of warranty period. We observe that the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Yatindra and Co. (supra) held that an amount received by assessee against bank guarantee was not accrued to the assessee during the year as no absolute right to receive the amount at that stage vested.
Atlas Copco AB of Sweden v. CIT (Bombay High Court) – It was held that Amount received by the taxpayer was on account of right to use the know-how for a specified period and there was no outright transfer of know-how. Therefore, amount received was royalty and taxable in India.
In Re Shell Technology India Private Limited (AAR)- It cannot be denied that the Applicant receives services in the form of general finance advice, Taxation advice, legal advice, advice on Information Technology, media advice, assistance in contract and procurement and assistance in Marketing. It is trite that these advisory services would be consultancy services if the element of expertise or special knowledge on the part of the consultant is established. In the facts of the case before us, SIPCL, the consultant in the present case, is in the business of providing advice and services to various Shell Operating companies.
In Re SEPCO III Electric Power Construction (AAR)- The applicant is a company incorporated under the laws of China on 26.3.2009. The applicant, among other things, is a supplier of equipments for Electric Power Projects. On 26.3.2009, the applicant entered into a contract with M/s Jhajjar Power Limited, for supplying of equipments for the Haryana Power Project.
CTCI Overseas Corporation Ltd. In Re (AAR)- In the present case, though the applicant has a business connection in India, it has not carried out any part of the business relating to offshore supplies in India. Under the deeming provision of section 9(1) read with Explanation 1(a), any business income accruing or arising to the applicant can be taxed in India only in respect of such operations carried out in India.
The Supreme Court has ruled that mandatory death penalty for an offender under the Arms Act was unconstitutional as it violated fundamental rights guaranteed to a citizen.A bench of Justices Asok Kumar Ganguly (since retd) and J S Khehar said Section 27(3) of the Arms Act, which imposed mandatory death penalty, was also “ultra vires and void” as it restricts the powers of the court in awarding sentences to an accused in such cases.
195. [(1)Any person responsible for paying to a non-resident, not being a company, or to a foreign company, any interest or any other sum chargeable under the provisions of this Act (not being income chargeable under the head “Salaries” shall, at the time of credit of such income to the account of the payee or at the time of payment thereof in cash or by the issue of a cheque or draft or by any other mode, whichever is earlier, deduct income-tax thereon at the rates in force :
In this case, the Service Tax demand has been confirmed on the ground that the service tax payable has not been debited in the CENVAT Credit account and it has not been reflected in the ST 3 return. In view of the fact that even in the cases of clandestine removal in Central Excise matters, while confirming the demand, the benefit of CENVAT Credit, subject to verification of records that proper documents are available and raw input/capital goods have been received, the benefit of CENVAT Credit is allowed.
Tribunal had considered the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Limited 2005 ((190) ELT 301 before coming to the conclusion that when fabrication does not amount to manufacture, service tax is not leviable. Further, he also submits that the claim for exemption is on the ground that the contract was for construction of roads had been denied on the ground that contract was not produced.
3. As the respondents did not submit the required declaration in proper format, Revenue entertained a view that they were not entitled to the 75% abatement in terms of Notification No. 32/04-ST. Accordingly, proceedings were initiated against them by way of show cause notice dated 13.10.06 proposing to confirm the demand of Rs. 6,917/-. The said show cause notice culminated into an order passed by the original adjudicating authority confirming the demand and imposing penalties. However, on appe
