The Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise issued a notice calling upon the respondent-assessee to pay the service tax in respect of the service rendered by it as a Dal Credere Agent. The Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore, passed an order in Original No. 28/2003 directing the respondent-assessee to pay the tax and also the penalty. Against which the respondent-assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) in Order-in-Appeal No. 214/2003, where the Commissioner confirmed the order of levying of service tax on the respondent in regard to service rendered by Del Credere Agent. Being aggrieved by the same, the respondent-assessee filed an appeal before the CESTAT. CESTAT has allowed the appeal holding that Del Credere Agent is not liable to pay service tax. Against which the revenue has come in this appeal.
Where an Association or Company trades with its members only and the surplus out of the common fund is distributable among the members, there is mutuality and the surplus is not assessable to tax as profit.
When an assessee purchases the spare parts for the existing machineries, same cannot be treated as capital expenditure and it has to be treated as revenue expenditure since these spare parts are purchased for the maintenance of the existing equipments.
The amount paid for compounding an offence is inevitably a penalty in terms of section 483 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 itself and the mere fact that it has been described as compounding fee cannot, in any way, alter the character of the payment which payment, is in the nature of penalty.
In so far as the rents received from Samsung are concerned., the finding recorded by the Assessing Officer is that, the structure is constructed by the Company itself with its own funds and not that the super structure has been constructed by the shareholders on the land belonging to the Company or a case where the investments
Whether, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the Assessing officer had to record his reasons and based on those reasons form his opinion that the income has escaped assessment by relying on two judgments of this Hon’ble Court in 133 JTJ? 199 and 155 ITR 748 before reopening assessments when Section 147
Insofar as Appeal No. 64/2009 is concerned relating to the correctness or otherwise of the order of the Tribunal rejecting the rectification application on the ground of limitation, even assuming, that it is a question of law, there is no error in the finding on the question of law also and therefore there is no way of keeping this appeal pending on the board of this Court for further examination, the order of the Tribunal is fully in consonance of the law declared by the Supreme Court in Hongo India (P) Ltd’s case (supra) the appeal inevitably has to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed.
There are no two opinions that but for the addition of sub-section [4] in section 115JA of the Act and which was conspicuously absent in section 115J of the Act, the ruling of this court and the reasoning and ratio mentioned in KWALITY BISCUITS* case (supraj would conclusively govern the question as the Judgment of this court had come to be affirmed by the Supreme Court in an appeal preferred by the revenue, though by simply dismissing the appeal without any reasons but granting leave and converting the special leave petition into an appeal.
Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee is not liable to deduct TDS in respect of payments made for purchase of software as the same cannot be treated as income liable to tax in India as Royalty or Scientific Work under section 9 of the Act read with Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements and treaties. Not correct, in the negative, against the assessee and in favour of the revenue
The assessee made payments to a foreign company for purchase of ‘shrink-wrapped’/ready-made software without deduction of tax at source u/s 195 (1). The AO held that the payments were chargeable to tax in the hands of the foreign company as “royalty” u/s 9 (1) (vi) and that the assessee was liable u/s 201 for non-deduction of tax and interest thereon.
