Assessee had only purchased software internally developed by non-resident and non-resident had not passed the copyright and only ‘right to use’ had been given to assessee and as such ‘right to use’ was akin to purchase of copyrighted article and in the absence of purchase of any copyright in the article, the assessee could not be held liable to deduct tax at source out of such payments.
In re Asstt. Commr. of SGST (D-819) Vs. Arihant Enterprises (GST AAAR Maharashtra) Sec. 98(2) provides that the application shall not be admitted where the question raised is already pending under any of the provisions of this act. The term ‘any of the provisions of this act’ includes investigations proceeding under section 67. It is […]
The issue under consideration is whether Capital Gains will be applicable in case where Bank sold the property of group concern as it failed to repay the loan?
A perusal of Section 94 shows that there is no power conferred upon the Central Government to make any Rules or Notifications for extraterritorial events; or in other words, for services rendered and consumed beyond the “taxable territory” i.e. beyond India. Obviously, the Act itself is not applicable to the territories other than India and therefore the Executives cannot have any power to make Rules for territories beyond India.
Nayara Energy Ltd. Vs C.C. Kandla (CESTAT Ahmedabad) CESTAT Ahmedabad has had held that the catalyst ‘Petromax- MD’, consumed in the final product and not required for setting up of the plant or required for running, repair and maintenance of the plant, was not eligible for the benefit of exemption which provided that the goods […]
Wadia Ghandy & Co. Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) The assessee is a Solicitor Firm and was initially constituted by three partners who were eminent Lawyers. He submitted, all the three partners had created huge goodwill which was definitely exploited by the firm. He submitted, for use of goodwill, the firm was required to pay 5% […]
Whether the parking lot services provided by the Contractor appointed by the Market Committee, which is a Government Authority is exempt under Notification No.12/2017 as the parking lot activity is covered under Article 243 of the Constitution.
CESTAT Mumbai held that merely because certain processes are carried out on the raw bees wax to make the product in a presentable and better marketable form, without significant change in the character and use between the raw bees wax and the cleaned/purified bees wax, the processes undertaken cannot result in manufacture.
Observing that there was no doubt that the green cardamom was used in making biscuits and pickles as flavouring agent and food additives, respectively, CESTAT Ahmedabad has rejected the department’s plea that since specific name of the product was not mentioned or ITC (HS) did not match in the DFIA licence, benefit thereunder was not available.
Bombay High Court has directed the DGFT to issue export obligation discharge certificate in a case where the Additional DGFT was satisfied that the petitioner had fulfilled the export obligation but denied the benefit of fulfilment of export obligation only on the ground of non- furnishing of bill of export,
