Service Tax : Despite doing away with the service-specific descriptions, there will be some descriptions where some differential treatment will ...
Income Tax : The Parliament has passed the the Competition (Amendment) Bill, 2009 which is to replace the Competition (Amendment) Ordinance, 20...
Income Tax : The government is likely to seek the Cabinet’s approval on amending the Competition Act 2002 to facilitate the winding up of the...
Income Tax : After a lull, the contentious provisions regarding mergers and acquisitions (M&A’s) of the amended Competition Act is back on th...
Income Tax : The Bombay High Court held that reassessment proceedings became time-barred because no reassessment order was passed within the li...
Service Tax : Profit arising from purchase and sale of cargo space by a freight forwarder on principal-to-principal basis was trading income and...
Service Tax : CESTAT Chandigarh held that the Air Travel Agents are not required to pay Service Tax on the Commission received by them from CDS/...
Company Law : The tribunal held that mere suspicion or possibility of fraud without supporting evidence cannot justify action under Section 66 o...
Company Law : Supreme Court held that section 66 of the Companies Act, 2013 doesn’t require mandatory obtaining or circulating of formal valua...
Service Tax : Notification No. 43/2009-Service Tax Whereas the Central Government is satisfied that a practice was generally prevalent regarding...
Service Tax : Notification No. 33/2009 - Service Tax Central Government hereby exempts the taxable service provided to any person in relation to...
Income Tax : That the said Association will submit to the prescribed authority by 30th June, each year, a copy of their audited annual accounts...
CESTAT Mumbai allowed the refund claim filed by Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporations (DICGC) by considering premium amount paid by bank as inclusive of tax.
CESTAT Delhi held that buying and selling space on ships does not amount to rendering a service and any profit or income earned through such transactions would not be leviable to service tax.
CESTAT Kolkata held that there was no proposal to demand service tax under ‘Cargo Handling Service’ in the Notice, however, in the impugned order the adjudicating authority classified the services under ‘Cargo Handling Service’. Hence, adjudicating authority has travelled beyond the scope of the Notice, which is legally not sustainable.
CESTAT Chennai held that refund claim of Education Cess (EC) and Secondary and Higher Education Cess (SHEC) on Oil Industry Development Cess (OID Cess) u/s 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 duly available as proved that burden of OID cess is not passed on to the buyer.
CESTAT Chandigarh held that sub-contractor is liable to pay service tax on ‘Erection, Commissioning and Installation service’ even if the main contractor has discharged Service Tax liability on the activity undertaken by the subcontractor.
CESTAT Delhi held that extended period of limitation cannot be invoked in absence of suppression of facts with an intent to evade payment of service tax. Here, it was merely suppression of facts but intent to evade payment of service tax was absent.
CESTAT Delhi held that the transaction of purchase and sale of liquor by the Corporation will not fall within the ambit of ‘Business Auxiliary Services’ and would, therefore, not be taxable.
ITAT Amritsar held that transfer of REC (Renewable Energy Certificate) is capital in nature and not liable to tax under business income as the income is offshoot from environmental concern not from offshoot of business concern.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that as ‘information technology software service’ was implemented w.e.f. 16.05.2008 the same cannot be held taxable prior to that date. Hence, demand for the period prior to 16.05.2008 is not maintainable.
CESTAT Chennai held that renting of immovable property for a hotel is expressly excluded from the ambit of the taxable service in Section 65(105)(zzzz) of the Finance Act, 1994. Accordingly, demand not sustainable.
