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 held that services provided by appellant (Commission agent) to their foreign principals is ‘export of service’ as contemplated under rule 3 of the 2005 Export Rules.
CESTAT Chennai held that black tea classifiable as agricultural product within the definition or meaning under notification no. 13/2003-S.T. dated 20.06.2003 as amended vide notification no. 08/2004-S.T. dated 09.07.2004. Hence, business auxiliary service provided by a commission agent in relation to sale or purchase of black tea is exempt from service tax.
CESTAT Delhi held that unless payment has been made for an independent activity of tolerating an act under an independent arrangement entered into for such activity or tolerating an act, such payment will not constitute ‘consideration’ and such activities will not constitute ‘supply’.
Delhi High Court held that the award can be regarded as enforceable only if it is actually executable. Accordingly, the Final Partial Award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal is unenforceable award.
Supreme Court held that User Development Fee (UDF) is in the form of ‘tax or cess’ collected for financing the cost of future projects and is not a consideration for services provided by the assessee to the customer, visitors, passengers, vendors etc.
Supreme Court held that as per Rule 2A of determination of value, service tax is payable only on the service element under works contract. Hence, CENVAT Credit of only service element is available.
CESTAT Mumbai held that the deposit insurance activity of Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation, Mumbai (DICGC) falls within the ambit of section 65(105)(d) of the Finance Act, 1994 and is chargeable to Service Tax under “General Insurance Business”.
CESTAT Chennai held that any other amount, other than gross amount charged for providing taxable service, which is calculated not for providing such taxable service cannot a part of that valuation as that amount is not calculated for providing such ‘taxable service’.
CESTAT Chennai held that handling of export cargo is excluded from the purview of service tax. The same is not exempted service. In nut-shell, any activity on which no service tax is payable doesn’t make such activity an exempted service.
NCLAT Chennai held that there is no specified look back period for fraudulent trading under section 66 and hence losses caused to the Creditors are recovered in the event of the Liquidation and that the Directors who caused such losses are made liable to make good such losses.
