The assessee, Nova Nordisk Pharma India Ltd, an Indian Company was engaged in marketing of pharmaceutical products. It was a subsidiary company of NOVA Nordisk, Singapore. One of the products (insulin in medically presentable form), was manufactured by M/s. Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited (Torrent) and supplied to the assessee company. The raw material was supplied by a foreign company NOVA Nordisk, Denmark. Torrent pursuant to the contract, was required to sell entire output only to the assessee company in India.
CIT v. Synopsys International Old Ltd(Karnataka High Court) – Payment for shrink wrapped software/off-the shelf software amounts to ‘royalty’ within the meaning of Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as well as under Article 12 of the India-Ireland tax treaty.
Karnataka Government Insurance Department V. ACCE (Karnatka HC)- Activities performed by sovereign/public authorities under the provision of law, which are in the nature of statutory obligations which are to be fulfilled in accordance with law are exempt from levy of service tax. The fee collected by them for performing such activities is in the nature of compulsory levy as per the provisions of the relevant statute and it is deposited into the Government treasury. Such activity is purely in public interest and it is undertaken as mandatory and statutory function. It is in those cases, service tax is not leviable. Insurance business is not a sovereign act. No fee is collected for performing such statutory functions.
CCE Vs. Tata Advanced Materials Ltd. (Karnataka HC)- Merely because the Insurance Company paid the assessee the value of goods including the excise duty paid, that would not render the availment of the cenvat credit wrong or irregular. At the same time, it does not confer any right on the Excise Department to demand reversal of credit or default to pay the said amount.
CIT Vs. Nova Nordisk Pharma India Ltd. (HC of Karnataka)- We find that this is not simply a situation of a product manufactured to the specifications of the assessee, being sold to the assessee at the price fixed by the supplier but this is a situation where a product manufactured out of raw materials supplied by a foreign company who had direct interest in the assessee company so manufactured to the specification of the assessee company utilising the technical know-how supplied by it and also labelling the product with the brand name of the assessee and supplying the entire product only to the assessee company
CIT v. Smt. K. G. Rukminiamma – Can exemption under section 54 be claimed in respect of more than one residential flat acquired by the assessee under a joint development agreement with a builder, wherein the property owned by the assessee was developed by the builder who constructed eight residential flats in the said property, four of which were given to the assessee?
CIT v. ASK Bros. Family Trust -(Karnataka High Court) – It is clear from the above said clauses that the intention of the parties while entering into the agreement dt. 1.4.1994 was only to grant license to the respondent and it cannot be said to be a lease deed. Further, having regard to the nature of consideration to be paid by the licensee as per clause 3 referred to above and the schedule mentioned in the agreement,
The ultimate object and purpose of Section 50C of the IT Act is to see that the undisclosed income of capital gains received by the assessees should be taxed and the law should not encourage and permit the assessee to peg down the market value at their whims and fancy to avoid tax.
Outward transportation of finished goods from the place of removal covered by definition of ‘input service’ upto 31.03.2008, service tax paid thereon eligible as CENVAT Credit – CESTAT Larger Bench decision in ABB Ltd & Ors to this extent legal and valid till 01.04.2008 – No merit in Revenue Appeals. Revenue Appeals rejected.
(a) The light energy which is used as a carrier in telecommunication service for rendering service is covered by the Parliamentary Legislation i.e. the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 65 (109-a). It does not fall within the Entry 54 of List-II of VII Schedule. (b) The contract in question is not a composite contract. It is an indivisible contract and a contract of service simplicitor. There is no element of sale at all to any extent. It is not a contract of sales simplicitor as contended by the State.
