In Re Shell Technology India Private Limited (AAR) – The applicant is said to be providing scientific and technical services to Overseas Shell group entities. SSSABV, a company incorporated in Netherlands, through its branch in the Philippines, is currently providing back office financial services relating to accounts etc. to the applicant. It is seen that software are installed for that purpose; but it has not been clarified whether they are installed in India or in the Philippines. It appears to us that this aspect may not matter, as the software is used by the Philippines branch of SSSABV for rendering the services to the applicant and not by the applicant itself,
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.
‘Whether the revival scheme submitted by the petitioner under sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 and accepted by Court amounts to compounding with the principal debtor leading to the discharge of the surety within the meaning of sections 134 and 135 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872?
Spacewood Furnishers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DGIT (Investigation)- Bombay HC – The mode and manner in which all these notes are prepared, show the absence of any relevant material with authorities which would have enabled them to have ‘a reason to believe’ that action under Section 132(1) of the Act was essential. No new material as such has been disclosed anywhere. No document or report of alleged discreet inquiry forms part of these notes.
Bayer Material Science Private Limited v. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) – The non segregation of the trading and indenting activity, inadequacy noticed by the Tribunal of the split-up between the said activities, non furnishing of comparable data by the assessee to validate the application of TNMM to indenting activities, ultimately led the Tribunal in the absence of valid comparable data, to allow the use of comparables controlled transactions for the purposes of benchmarking.
Arjun Industries Ltd & Anr Vs. Industrial Development Bank Of India & Anr.(Delhi HC) – Para 7 of the order dated 23.05.2007 reads as under:- ‘During the course of arguments, we had put to learned counsel for the parties that prima facie there does not appear to be any legal impediment or obstacle in the assignment of the debt by financial institution like IDBI. However, if the respondents wish to contest the O.A. filed by the petitioner before the Debt Recovery Tribunal on merits and/or to contend that petitioner was also bound by the settlement recommended for acceptance by the petitioner predecessor-ininterest i.e. IDBI or to urge any ground on merits in defence to the OA,
Guy Carpenter & Co. Ltd., Vs. ADIT (ITAT Delhi) – In the present case, the New India Insurance Co. or other Insurance Company in India, who avails the services of the assessee as a broker in the process of the re-insurance of the risk is left with no technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how or processes so as to bring the services rendered by the assessee within the ambit of Article 13(4)(c) of the Treaty.
ITO Vs Sino Securities Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) – After hearing both the parties, we find that the issue is covered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee by the decision of Mumbai “C” Bench of the Tribunal in ITA no.5538/Mum./2009, for assessment year 2006- 07, in ACIT v/s M/s. Omniscient Securities P. Ltd., order dated 16thMarch 2011, wherein the Tribunal, vide Para-10, dismissed the ground raised by the Revenue, which reads as follows:-
Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr. (Jodhpur High Court) – Court is of the opinion that even though in the era of E-filing of the returns under the various laws, such a practice deserves to be encouraged and is acceptable form of filing of returns to the various Tax Department, it is admitted position before this Court that relevant Rules for filing of soft copies of these returns viz. VAT-07, VAT-08 and VAT-9, particularly assessment year 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 were not available on the statue book on the date when they were filed. In the present case, as aforesaid, the relevant amendments in Rule 19 and 1 9A reproduced above were brought w.e.f. 20.11.2007 and 29.8.2008 respectively. The notification Annex.10 placed on record also permits only a particular class of dealers to file such returns electronically. The notification dtd.27.2.2009 was given immediate effect and the date admittedly fell after relevant dates of filing of soft copy in the present case viz. On 16.10.2006, 30.11.2006, 28.2.2007 and 31.5.2007 respectively.
