TRENT Ltd and Future Value Retail Ltd have challenged before the AP High Court, the service tax with retrospective effect on renting of immovable property, brought in by the Finance Act, 2010.
In fact, recording of reasons ensures that the authority has applied its mind to the case and the reasons that compelled the authority to take a decision in question are germane to the contents and scope of power vested in the authority. Therefore, giving of reasons by an adjudicating body goes to the very root of the process of decision-making or adjudication and therefore, it is not just a formal requirement but indicates that the adjudicatory body has applied its own mind to the merits of the case and also to avoid any doubt as to any perfunctory approach.
Delhi High Court Ruling: If the assessee makes a claim which is not only incorrect in law but is also wholly without any basis and the explanation furnished by him for making such a claim is not found to be bonafide, it would be difficult to say that he would still not be liable to penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act [CIT vs. Zoom Communications Private Limited (2010-TIOL-361-HC-DEL-IT)]
Life Insurance Corporation of India, the market leader in insurance sector, cannot charge any fee for transfer or assignment of its policies, the Bombay High Court has held.
Where assessee was not engaged in collecting and receiving goods of the foreign principal but it was engaged in procuring the customers for the foreign principal, the nature of activities of the assessee cannot be brought within the scope of definition of `C and F Agent’ under section 65(25)
Under the Indian Tax Laws (ITL), a taxpayer carrying on the business of generation of electricity, which qualifies for income-linked deduction (eligible business), can opt to claim such deduction for a period of 10 assessment years (AYs) out of 15 years, beginning from the year in which the taxpayer commences generation of power.
In fact, the Bombay High Court in Indian National Shipowners Association v. Union of India [2009] 19 STT 408 (Bom.) has more than adequately dealt with the entire issue and inter alia concluded that it is only after enactment of section 66A that taxable services received from abroad by a person belonging to India are taxed in the hands of the Indian residents; before enactment of section 66A, there was no such provision in the Act and therefore, the respondents had no authority to levy service tax on the members of the petitioners-association.
Recently, the Delhi High Court in the case of Maharishi Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd. v. ACIT (ITA no. 222 of 2009) (Delhi) after following its own decision in the case of Van Oord ACZ India (P) Ltd v. CIT [2010-TIOL-1 87-HC-DEL-IT] held that the question of tax withholding in case of payment made to non-resident would arise only if the said payment is chargeable to tax in India.
Recently, the Bombay High Court in the case of M/s. Essel Propack Limited [2010-TIOL-209-HC-MUM-IT] held that the technical know how fee paid by the taxpayer for acquiring non exclusive licence to manufacture some machines, which was confined to the territory of India for the term of five years during which the proprietary rights in the patents of the licence continued to vest in the licensor,
Delhi High Court has again granted stay to Home Solution Retail (I) Ltd. in W.P. (C) No. 3398 of 2010 on 18.05.2010 from payment of service tax on renting of immovable property. The stay is not on services in relation to renting but on renting per se.
