Discount to distributors by Telecom Company is not in the nature of commission/brokerage and the roaming charges paid to other telecom operators are not in the nature of fee for technical services.
ITAT Hyderabad in the case of Smt. Cherkuri vs. DCIT concluded that development of commercial complex by the buyer of plot area even if it is approved by the concerned authorities as the part of the project, could not be said to have been developed by the assessee as a part & parcel of the project.
ITAT Licknow in the case of ACIT vs. M/s Rahman Industries Ltd. held that- Adjustment for variation in closing stock is necessary for the correct computation of Operating cost thereby correct application of Transaction Net Margin Method (TNMM).
The ITAT after considering the rival submissions observed that both the counsels agreed before us that the issue in dispute is squarely covered by the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for AY 2010-11 in ITA No. 1742/Hyd/2014 dated 25/03/2015
Phrase prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue had to be read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed by the AO, that every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of the AO cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue,
Karnataka High Court in the case of M/s TVS Motors Co. Ltd. held that the automobile cess leviable under the automobile cesses rules are governed by the provisions of central excise act and rules made under the act and are in the nature of excise duty and thus, allowable as rebate under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules,2002.
The Hon’ble Madras HC in the case of PK Shefi vs. CESTAT held that the tribunal is not right to order pre-deposit prejudicial to the interest of the assessee when the issue was debatable and the assessee has reasonably shown the likely financial hardship to be suffered.
Amendment made by Finance Bill, 2015 by way of insertion of explanation to Sec 65B(44) , it is clear that the Govt. intends to collect the service tax on foreman commission . However, it is well settled position of the law that the any explanation bringing the new activity into tax net would not be having a retrospective effect unless the explanation being inserted retrospectively, which is not so in this case. Thus, the tax chargeable on chit fund service will be prospective i.e from the date of enactment of Finance Act, 2015.
The Commissioner has not taken into consideration the details of processed fabrics received by SCM and AP& Sons and not considered the evidences relied by the department and also white papers bearing the signature of Shri C. Manikandan
Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s Shree Triveni Foods held that the claim of depreciation for assessment years under dispute was not mandatory and therefore, the assessee could not be compelled to exercise the option as an obligation.
