Revenue in their memo of appeal have sought to distinguish the Hon’ble Bombay High Court judgment in the case Indian Ship Owners Association vs. UOI, on the ground that in that decision the services were received outside the India, whereas in the present case, the services were received inside the India from the person having his office in India. We do not find any merit in the above distinction being made by the Revenue. Section 66-A having been inserted in the Finance Act with effect from 18.4.2006 clearly laying down that recipient of services in India from outside India shall be liable to pay tax, cannot be made applicable retrospectively. We find no merits in the Revenue’s contention. Accordingly, the appeal is rejected. Stay petition also get disposed off.
Rule 7 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 – Cenvat credit – Distribution of credit on inputs by office or any other premises of output service provider – Assessee paid service tax pertaining to advertisement of its product manufactured in a unit – It availed Cenvat credit of service tax so paid in another unit – Revenue denied said credit on ground that assessee was entitled to take credit only in unit where product was manufactured –
CIT vs. Moni Kumar Subba (Delhi High Court – Full Bench) – If Assessing Officer Finds that the actual rent received is less than the “fair/market rent‟ because the assessee has received abnormally high interest free security deposit, he can undertake necessary exercise in that behalf. However, by no stretch of imagination, the notional interest on the interest free security can be taken as determinative factor to arrive at the “fair rent”. Section. 23(1)(a) of Income Tax Act, 1961 does not mandate this.
The Mumbai bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, (“Tribunal”) in a ruling’ in the case of Citicorp Banking Corporation, Baharain v. Addl. Director of Income Tax (I.T.)-Range 1-[2011-T11-40-1TAT-MUM-INTL] , held that losses arising on cancellation of foreign exchange forward contracts entered into by the assessee for protecting it against the risk of currency fluctuation would be characterised as capital loss and the said loss can be set-off against other capital gains under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”). Further, the Tribunal also held that section 115AD provides for tax rates on income from securities or capital gains and it has nothing to do with determination of the nature of gain or loss i.e. capital or revenue.
Section 2(47) of Income-tax Act defines transfer, which, inter alia includes sale, exchange, relinquishment of the asset or extinguishment of any rights therein. In the case of Phulchand Sons Investments Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT the Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal observed that the assessee had undertaken a loan transaction and not sale of shares during the subject assessment year. The revenue authorities were unable to bring any evidence on record to establish that the assessee had engaged in a sale transaction and not a loan transaction. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that lending of shares is not a ‘transfer’ within the meaning of section 2(47) of the Act, and hence, is not taxable.
VNU International B. V., AAR No. 871 of 2010, order dated 28 March 2011- Whether capital gains earned by the applicant on transfer of shares of the Indian company would be liable to tax in India as per the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 („the Act‟) and the Tax Treaty between India and The Netherlands? If the capital gain is not taxable in India, whether the applicant is required to file any return of income under section 139 of the Act? Whether the transfer of shares by the applicant would attract transfer pricing provisions under sections 92 to 92F of the Act? Whether the purchasers were liable to withhold tax at source under section 195 of the Act and if so, on what amount should the tax have been deducted?
DIT vs. Maersk Co Ltd as agent of Mr. Henning Skov – In the instant case, it was held that the assessee was not liable to pay interest under section 234B upon failure on the part of the employer to deduct tax at source as the obligation to deduct tax at source is upon the employer. The assessee was only liable to pay tax directly under section 191 of the Act.
Whether a person who is not actual service provider, but discharges the Service tax liability on the Taxable Services, under Section 68(2) of the Finance Act, 1994, as a deemed service provider, is entitled to avail the Cenvat Credit on inputs/inputs services/Capital Goods for payment of GTA Services tax, even if he is not using such inputs/input services/capital goods for providing taxable services? Counsel for the revenue fairly states that the matter is covered against the revenue by order of this Court dated 6.5.2010 in CEA No.99 of 2008 CCE v. M/s Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd . etc . Appeal Dismissed
Even higher liability of the assessee had to be treated to be in issue before the Commissioner (Appeals). Thus, exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 84(4) of the Finance Act, 1994 when appeal had been preferred was not permissible. The view taken by the Tribunal is consistent with above statutory provision.
Sales Tax – Indirect Tax – U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 – Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 – Exemption – Notification No. 1166 dt. 10.4.2000 – Assessee, engaged in the manufacture and sales of various ‘scientific and biological equipments/instruments’, claimed goods sold by it were exempted from tax in view of the notification no. 1166 – Assessing Authority (AO) held that the assessee was not entitled to get exemption under the aforesaid notification and the impugned goods of the assessee were liable to be taxed at the rate of 10% as unclassified goods
