Service tax had to be levied only for consideration received for service, therefore, the entire demand of service tax on reimbursable expenses collected from clients for the period post 1.5.2006 was set aside. However, to the extent assessee had collected any amount representing service tax on such expenses and interest thereon from clients, the same need to be deposited with the Government in terms of Section 73A of the Finance Act.
Sunil Tandon Vs Union of India (Delhi High Court) Conclusion: Writ petition was not maintainable on account of the alternative statutory remedies available to assessee before NCLT/ NCLAT . Held: Assessee approached High Court on the ground that under the proviso to Section 241(2), it was only the Principal Bench of NCLT at Delhi which […]
IT support services availed by assessee-Indian company from foreign companies were standard connectivity and networking services could not be termed as technical services within the meaning of Section 9(1)(vii) and therefore, assessee was not liable to deduct TDS on such expenditures.
The nomenclature that the legislature had ascribed to the tax did not determine either the nature of the levy or its true and essential character. The tax had been labelled as the water tax or a sewerage tax simply because it was imposed by the Jal Sansthan constituted under the UP Water Supply and Sewerage Act. That did not alter the nature of the levy which in substance was a tax on lands and buildings within the meaning of Entry 49 of List II of the Seventh Schedule.
ICRW Group Gratuity Trust Vs CIT (Exemption) (ITAT Delhi) No denial of registration u/s 12AA to ICRW only because it benefited restricted group of employees unless full enquiry was made Conclusion: Registration under section 12AA could not be denied to assessee-trust merely because it was for the benefit of a restricted group of employees as […]
Reassessment proceedings finalized by AO was invalid as AO had failed to bring on record any positive evidence to prove that the notice u/s 148 was properly served upon assessee.
Since the jurisdiction of PCIT(E) was being limited to verification of two issues, one with regard to the ‘lease hold land’ and the second about the fee concession and on both accounts, CIT (E) had not drawn any adverse inference and, therefore, the order of CIT(E) denying the registration u/s 12AA was bad in law.
PCIT was not justified in assuming the jurisdiction under section 263 when the case of assessee which was selected for limited scrutiny was never converted to full scrutiny and assessee had submitted all the details as called for by AO from time to time for the reasons for which the case was selected for limited scrutiny.
CIT had power to correct an error, which was prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue in the order of AO, even if it was approved by the Joint Commissioner, who was also falling below the rank of the Pr. Commissioner. Whatever was to be excluded by the law had already been provided under that Section and the only exception were the issues ‘decided and considered’ in the appellate orders.
The allotment of a plot by the West Bengal Housing Infrastructure Development Corporation (HIDCO) to former cricketer and current BCCI President Sourav Ganguly for the purpose of establishing an educational institution was quashed as no one could claim to be exclusive, above the law and sought benefits from the State, especially when question arose for allotment of plots for commercial ventures.
