It is to be noted here that the claim made by the assessee under section 158-A will not however preclude the Assessing Officer from making an order disposing of the relevant case without awaiting the final decision on the question of law in other case. When the decision on the question of law becomes final, it shall be applied to the relevant case and the Assessing Officer and the appellate authority shall amend the order earlier passed, if necessary in view of the final decision on the question of law in the other case.
Two flats purchased by the assessee were situated side by side. Builder also stated that he had effected modifications to the flats to make them one unit by opening the door in between the two apartments. The fact that the assessee could not have purchased both the flats in one single sale deed or could not have narrated the purchase of two premises as one unit in the sale deed could not make any difference.
M/s Sasken Communication v. Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes & Ors (Karnataka High Court) The contract for development of software in question are not works contract but contract for service simplicitor and hence not liable to tax under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The contract for development of software is not a composite contract consisting of a contract of service and contract for sale of goods. It is an indivisible contract of service only.
The contract may be in writing or it may be oral but the liability to pay tax arises when the recipient of the said amount receives payment in excess of Rs. 20,000.
The Tribunal was correct in holding that consideration paid by the assessee to certain American Company for providing technicians to train assessee’s personnel in manufacturing, testing, inspection and quality control of its products and to impart know-how and technical data and suggest improvements thereto, did not fall under section 35AB, but was entitled to total relief under section 37(1)
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.
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)
The respondent is a 100% Export Oriented Unit (‘EOU’ for short) engaged in the manufacture of parts of agricultural and farm equipment which are chargeable to ‘Nil’ rate of duty under Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (Tariff Act). The respondent filed three refund claims with the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Bengaluru under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, being the unutilised credit availed by the respondent in respect of certain inputs used in the manufacture and export of their final product.
When the assessee is a consignment agent, as the definition of C&F agent includes consignment agents, CESTAT was not right in holding that the service provided by a consignment agent is not covered by section 65(25) of the Finance Act, 1994.
As on November, 1998, the word company or firm was not included under definition of section 65(31) and section 66A had come into force w.e.f 18-4-2006, therefore, service tax was not applicable to a foreign company for rendering service in India for the period November, 1998 to December, 2000
