Mr. A. Shankar, learned counsel for the assessee has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of this appeal at this point of time pointing out that the revenue that is involved is not more than Rs. 2,00,000/- and therefore, in terms of board Circular No. 2/05, dated 24.10.2005 the appeal should not be entertained.
It was envisaged between the assessee and GAIL that gas would be supplied by GAIL to the assessee at the receiving point of the assessee’s factory. For such purpose GAIL would be laying down its pipelines and other equipments and would maintain such paraphernalia
In the instant case, the contributors, namely, the members of the assessee made contributions, which have been kept in fixed deposit with third party banks and those third party banks have contributed to the members fund. Accordingly, the members fund have been expanded not by the contributors/members, but by a third party.
Levy of Service Tax on ‘Consulting Engineering Services’ was introduced with effect from 7-7-1997 while ‘Scientific or Technical Consultancy’ was brought under Service Tax net with effect from 16-7-2001 only. The assessee was not only providing ‘Consulting Engineering Services’ but also ‘Scientific or Technical Consultancy’ i.e. Scientific Research.
Amalgamation does not come within the scope of ‘transfer’ as defined in Section 2(47) of the Act and such being the view taken not only by this court, but Madras High Court and also the Supreme Court, there is no question of holding that the assessee disentitles the benefit of Section 80-I of the Act.
Section 67 quantifies the charge of service tax provided in section 66, which is the charging section. Section 67 authorises the determination of the value of the taxable service for the purpose of charging service tax under section 66 as the gross amount charged
Considering the fact that the dispute between the partners in respect of the accounts of the said firm was referred to the arbitrator who was an independent person and the said arbitrator looking to the entire evidence has accepted the balance-sheet audited by the 1st Respondent as correct, we see no reason to interfere with the prima facie view of the Institute on the complaint filed by the Petitioner.
This is a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The following two questions have been referred to the opinion of this court at the instance of the assessee with reference to the assessment years 1985-86 and 1986-87.
If we take the view that a claim which is wholly untenable in law and has absolutely no foundation on which it could be made, the assessee would not be liable to imposition of penalty, even if he was not acting bonafide while making a claim of this nature, that would give a licence to unscrupulous assessees to make wholly untenable and unsustainable claims without there being any basis for making them
Section 65(19) of the Act defines business auxiliary service and excludes ‘information technology service’ which is defined in the Explanation to the said section as “any service in relation to designing, developing or maintaining of computer software, or computerised data processing or system networking, or any other service primarily in relation to operation of computer systems.
